author: Mr. Justice Stewart

text:
    QUERN, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC AID OF ILLINOIS, et al. v. MANDLEY et al.
    No. 76-1159.
    Argued November 30, 1977 —
    Decided June 6, 1978

      Stewart, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined except Blackmun, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the cases.

      George W. Lindberg, First Assistant Attorney General of Illinois, argued the cause for petitioners in No. 76-1159. With him on the briefs were William J. Scott, Attorney General, and Paul J. Bargiel and Paul V. Esposito, Assistant Attorneys General. Deputy Solicitor General Jones argued the cause for petitioner in No. 76-1416. With him on the brief were Solicitor General McCree, Assistant Attorney General Bab-cock, Marion L. Jetton, William Ranter, and Harry B. Silver.

      Michael F. Lefkow argued the cause for respondents in both cases. With him on the brief was Stephen G. Seliger.

      Together with No. 76-1416, Califano, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. Mandley et al., also on certiorari to the same court.

         William F. Hyland, Attorney General, Stephen Skillman, Assistant Attorney General, and Richard M. Hluchan, Deputy Attorney General, filed a brief for the State of New Jersey as amicus curiae urging reversal.

        Theodore C. Diller and Deborah C. Franczek filed a brief for the United Way of Metropolitan Chicago et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance.

        Francis X. Bellotti, Attorney General, and S. Stephen Rosenfeld and Garrick F. Cole, Assistant Attorneys General, filed a brief for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as amicus curiae.

   Mr. Justice Stewart

delivered the opinion of the Court.

These cases require examination of the interplay between state option and federal mandate within the system of cooperative federalism created by the public assistance programs of Title IY-A of the Social Security Act, 42 U. S. C. § 601 et seq. The ultimate question to be decided is whether a State may ever receive federal matching funds for a program of emergency assistance to needy families, either under the general program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) or under the specific provisions for Emergency Assistance to Needy Families with Children (EA), if it limits eligibility for such aid more narrowly than the federal EA statute.

I

Title IV-A of the Social Security Act establishes several different public aid programs under the general rubric of “Grants to States for Aid and Services to Needy Families with Children.” In order to receive federal funds under any of the Title IV-A programs a State must adopt a “state plan for aid and services to needy families with children” that is approved by the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) as meeting the requirements set forth in § 402 of the Act.

AFDC is the core of the Title IV-A system. As the Court observed in one of its earliest forays into Title IV, AFDC is a categorical aid program, and “the category singled out for welfare assistance ... is the 'dependent child,’ who is defined in § 406 of the Act ... as an age-qualified 'needy child . . . who has been deprived of parental support or care by reason of the death, continued absence from the home, or physical or mental incapacity of a parent, and wlm is living with’ any one of several listed relatives.” King v. Smith, 392 U. S. 309, 313. A State’s expenditures for AFDC, under an approved § 402 state plan, are reimbursed by the Federal Government according to the formula set forth in § 403 (a)(1).

The federal EA program was added to Title IV as part of the omnibus Social Security Amendments of 1967. Pub. L. 90-248, § 206, 81 Stat. 893. It was described in the Senate Finance Committee report as “a new program optional with the States [to] authorize dollar-for-dollar Federal matching to provide temporary assistance to meet the great variety of situations faced by needy children in families with emergencies.” S. Rep. No. 744, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 4 (1967). To participate in the program a State must include a provision for EA in its § 402 state plan, and funding at a flat rate of 50% of program expenses is authorized by § 403 (a)(5).

Unlike AFDC, eligibility for EA is not limited to “dependent children.” Instead, the term “emergency assistance to needy families with children” is broadly defined in § 406 (e) to include money payments and other kinds of aid provided on a temporary basis “to avoid destitution ... or to provide living arrangements” for a “needy child under the age of 21 who is . . . without available resources.” 42 U. S. C. § 606 (e)(1). Thus under the EA statute, federal matching funds are available for emergency aid to intact families with children if threatened with destitution, regardless of the cause of their need.

The State of Illinois, however, elected to adopt an EA program of much narrower scope. It provided only for (1) aid to AFDC families who were without shelter as a result of either damage to their homes or court-ordered eviction for reasons other than nonpayment of rent; and (2) aid to applicants determined to be presumptively eligible for AFDC who were in immediate need of clothing or household furnishings.

In 1973 the respondents instituted a class action against state and federal officials on behalf of all “AFDC recipients, applicants for AFDC, and other families with needy children” in Illinois seeking a declaratory judgment that the Illinois EA program violated federal law by defining eligibility more narrowly than § 406 (e) (1), and an injunction restraining the defendants from administering the allegedly unlawful program. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held in an unreported opinion that the State's program was not inconsistent with federal law. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed this judgment, ruling that “Illinois may no longer conduct an emergency assistance program under [§ 406 (e)] in which some of the families with needy children described in [§ 406 (e)] are given aid arid some are not.” Mandley v. Trainor, 523 F. 2d 415, 423 (Mandley I).

After the Court of Appeals' mandate was returned to the District Court, the plaintiffs submitted a proposed final order requiring the State to conform its EA program to the provisions of § 406 (e) and further requiring the federal defendants to promulgate regulations consistent with the Court of Appeals' interpretation of the statute. The state and federal defendants not only opposed the substantive terms of the proposed order, but also filed motions to dismiss the complaint altogether on the ground that the case had been rendered moot by the State’s decision to withdraw entirely from the EA program. In support of its motion the State filed an affidavit from the Chief Fiscal Officer of its Department of Public Aid stating that “the Department would immediately cease all activities and requests for federal reimbursement pursuant to the 'Emergency Assistance’ program of § 406 (e) of the Social Security Act” and that “no additional § 406 (e) federal funds [would] be drawn for the balance ... of the current fiscal year.”

In opposing the motions to dismiss, the plaintiffs argued that even though the State would no longer request federal reimbursement for emergency aid under §§ 406 (e) and 403 (a)(5), it intended nonetheless to operate virtually the identical program as an AFDC “special needs” program and to seek federal reimbursement under § 403 (a) (1). They contended that such a course of conduct would be equally unlawful. The District Court took the position that the validity of any proposed program under the AFDC provisions presented a new question that had not been raised in the original lawsuit, and that the plaintiffs’ challenge to the § 406 (e) program had indeed been rendered moot by the State’s decision to withdraw altogether from the EA program. When the plaintiffs declined to amend their complaint to allege that the new program would also be in violation of § 403 (a)(1), the District Court entered an order dismissing the cause “for lack of case or controversy.”

The Court of Appeals again reversed. Mandley v. Trainor, 545 F. 2d 1062 (Mandley II). Noting that the defendants “admitted] that they [were] conducting the same program under the label 'special assistance’ that they formerly conducted under the label of emergency assistance,” Id., at 1068, the Court of Appeals held that the change in funding arrangements did not raise issues beyond the scope of the plaintiffs’ pleadings, and did not render the case moot. As the appellate court viewed the situation, the plaintiffs were still claiming, as they always had, that any federally funded program for emergency assistance must conform with the eligibility standards of § 406 (e)(1), and that the defendants were still violating the federal law by using federal funds to operate an emergency assistance program that defined eligibility more narrowly than § 406 (e)(1). On the merits the Court of Appeals agreed with the plaintiffs that § 403 (a) (5) is the exclusive source of federal funds for a program of emergency assistance, and therefore held that Illinois’ proposed new program, as a de facto EA program, must extend aid to all persons eligible under § 406 (e) (1).

Because of the lengthy and, in its view, wrongful delay in the implementation of its Mandley I mandate, the Court of Appeals then considered sua sponte the defendants’ objections to the terms of the final order that had been proposed by the plaintiffs after the first remand, and directed the District Court on remand to enter the proposed order with minor modifications. As to the state defendants this order would provide:

“Defendants . . . are enjoined, so long as Illinois receives federal funding under Title IY-A of the Social Security Act, from claiming reimbursement for emergency assistance (however designated) under any other section of the Act than §§ 406 (e) and 403 (a)(5) and are enjoined from using any other means of limiting eligibility for emergency assistance more narrowly than the provisions of §406 (e), and are further enjoined from denying emergency assistance ... to any member of the plaintiff class with a needy child [who is eligible under the definition in §406 (e)].”

In addition the Secretary of HEW was to be

“enjoined from approving state plans for emergency assistance which limit eligibility more narrowly than § 406 (e) of the Act or funding an emergency assistance program (however designated) under any provision of the Act other than §§ 406 (e) and 403 (a)(6).”

The broad injunction ordered by the Court of Appeals raises two distinct statutory questions: whether a program of emergency aid to AFDC families may qualify for federal funding under a provision other than § 403 (a)(5), and more particularly as an AFDC “special needs” program under § 403 (a)(1); and whether a State that adopts an EA program under §§ 403 (a)(5) and 406 (e) must define eligibility no more narrowly than § 406 (e) , We granted certiorari, 431 U. S. 953, to consider these important questions affecting the nationwide administration of a major federal welfare program.

I — I

As the Court of Appeals readily conceded, its holding m Mandley I that federal eligibility standards are mandatory upon States that adopt the optional EA program in no way obligates a State to continue that program. The federal definition of eligibility in § 406 (e), like the other provisions of Title IV of the Social Security Act, simply governs the dispensation of federal funds. See Townsend v. Swank, 404 U. S. 282, 292 (Burger, C. J., concurring in result). And while Congress may attach strings to its offer of federal funding, it does not require the States to accept any federal funds at all.

The Court of Appeals also acknowledged that § 406 (e) does not by its own terms attach any eligibility “strings” to a program funded under the AFDC provisions. If Illinois’ plan to meet the emergency needs of AFDC recipients by means of AFDC “special needs payments” was proper under § 403 (a)(1), the broader EA eligibility definition would have no application. The Court of Appeals believed, however, that the requirements of § 406 (e) would be “totally eviscerated” if States could evade them simply by resorting to the AFDC provisions. This effect, in its view, compels the conclusion that § 403 (a) (5) is the exclusive source of federal funds for emergency needs, and therefore that emergency payments of the kind contemplated by the Illinois plan cannot be reimbursed under § 403 (a)(1) as AFDC “special needs.”

A

Even assuming the Court of Appeals’ premise that § 406 (e) does impose mandatory standards of eligibility for EA, its conclusion simply does not follow. If a State adopts a program that is, for whatever reason, not a proper EA program, it is no “evasion” of the requirements of § 406 (e) to seek alternative funding. It is merely an election not to operate an EA program, but to do something quite different instead. Since the statute clearly offers the States an option whether or not to adopt an EA program, it is in no sense “eviscerated” when a State chooses to forgo the offer.

The legislative history does not indicate a contrary intent. The Court of Appeals found highly significant the description of EA as an altogether “new” program that would provide federal matching for emergency assistance “[f]or the first time,” 113 Cong. Rec. 36319 (1967) (remarks of Sen. Curtis). But, as we have already observed, a critical distinction between EA and AFDC is that eligibility for the former does not depend on the absence of a parent from the home. Thus the enactment of EA extended aid to an entirely new class of families that had not previously been eligible for any form of federal assistance. In this context, the fact that EA was described as a “new” program hardly implies an understanding that the emergency needs of persons who were eligible for AFDC could not be met under the existing program. Indeed the contrary understanding is revealed in the observation that emergency assistance to AFDC applicants was “frequently . . . unavailable under State programs today.” S. Rep. No. 744, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 165 (1967). (Emphasis supplied.)

There is nothing, therefore, in the policies or history of the EA statute to indicate that Illinois’ proposed AFDC special-needs program should not be judged solely under the requirements for an AFDC program funded under §403 (a)(1), without regard to the EA requirements of §§ 406(e) and 403 (a)(5). Accordingly, we must consider whether the special-needs program proposed by Illinois is permissible as part of an AFDC program alone.

B

Illinois’ proposed program would recognize specified emergency needs as “special needs items” within its AFDC “standard of need.” The standard of need is a dollar figure set by each State reflecting the amount deemed necessary to provide for essential needs, such as food, clothing, and shelter. See Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U. S. 397, 408. It is the “yardstick” for measuring finanical eligibility for assistance, but the level of benefits actually paid is not necessarily a function of the standard of need. Ibid. At least as early as 1966 federal regulations recognized that States could properly include special-needs items in their standards of need for AFDC. These “are usually defined as those needs that are recognized by the State as essential for some persons but not for all, and that must therefore be determined on an individual basis.” U. S. Dept, of HEW, Social and Rehabilitation Service, Assistance Payments Administration, Characteristics of State Plans for Aid to Families with Dependent Children xiii (1974) (AFDC Survey). Whenever the special need is found to exist, it is budgeted in the total standard of need. Ibid.

Frequently the special need is a regular or recurring expense, such as medication or a medically indicated diet, but this is not always the case. On the contrary, the 1974 AFDC Survey, supra, reveals that HEW has approved state plans that cover a wide variety of needs under the rubric of “special circumstance items,” including one-time emergency needs like replacing major appliances, home repair, and catastrophic loss. Similarly, the loss of shelter because of damage or eviction is a particular, nonrecurring event that befalls some, but not all, AFDC recipients, which may be reflected in an adjustment in the standard .of need whenever that event occurs.

By approving state plans that cover nonrecurring emergencies as special needs HEW has expressed its view that such items are properly included in the AFDC standard of need for reimbursement under §403 (a)(1). The interpretation of the agency charged with administration of the statute is, of course, entitled to substantial deference. New York Dept. of Social Services v. Dublino, 413 U. S. 405, 421. Moreover, this view is entirely consistent with the well-established principle that the States have “undisputed power to set the level of benefits and the standard of need” for their AFDC programs. King v. Smith, 392 U. S., at 334; Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471, 478; Rosado v. Wyman, supra, at 408; Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U. S. 535, 541. See n. 11, supra.

Since Illinois has not in fact submitted a proposed special-needs program for approval, see n. 8, supra, there is no way of knowing whether such a plan would comply in all other respects with the requirements for an AFDC program. But it is clear that a plan to meet certain emergency needs of AFDC recipients — specifically actual or threatened loss of shelter due to damage or eviction — is not necessarily improper as an AFDC special-needs program simply because it addresses- a nonrecurring need that could alternatively be provided for under an EA program.

Ill

Although the Court of Appeals’ opinion in Mandley II focused on the proposed special-needs program, the injunction it ordered to be entered on remand would prohibit not only the operation of such a program under AFDC, but any program of emergency assistance that defines eligibility more narrowly than § 406 (e). In substance, therefore, the injunction would enforce Mandley 7’s holding that § 406 (e) imposes mandatory eligibility standards on States participating in the EA program. Since there is still a live controversy over this issue, see n. 7, supra, it is to that question that we now turn.

Section 406 (e) defines EA in terms of four distinct considerations. First, unlike AFDC, it specifies a time limitation: EA may be provided only for a period not to exceed 30 days in any 12-month period. Second, it describes the persons on whose behalf aid may be furnished: needy children under the age of 21 who are living with specified relatives. Third, it defines the circumstances under which aid may be provided: where the child is without resources, and aid is necessary to “avoid destitution ... or to provide living arrangements” for the child. Finally, it describes the method by which aid may be provided: not only cash payments and medical or remedial care, as under AFDC, but also payments in kind and “such services as may be specified by the Secretary.” In summary, under EA any family with children that is for any reason threatened with destitution is eligible for emergency aid at least once in a 12-month period, and that aid may be provided by almost any means.

In declaring that Illinois is prohibited from narrowing these broad standards in any way, the Court of Appeals relied on a long line of this Court’s cases mapping out the mandatory reach of the AFDC eligibility provisions. As to AFDC, the law is indeed clear. Each State is entirely free to set its own monetary standard of need and level of benefits. King v. Smith, supra, at 334; Dandridge v. Williams, supra, at 478; Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U. S., at 408; Jefferson v. Hackney, supra, at 541. But the States are not free to narrow the federal standards that define the categories of people eligible for aid. Beginning with King v. Smith, supra, this Court has consistently held that States participating in the AFDC program must make assistance available to all persons who meet the criteria of § 406 (a) of the Act. Carleson v. Remillard, 406 U. S. 598; Townsend v. Swank, 404 U. S. 282. See also Lewis v. Martin, 397 U. S. 552. The statutory foundation for this conclusion is § 402 (a) (10), which requires that a State’s “plan for aid and services to needy families with children” must provide that “aid to families with dependent children shall be furnished with reasonable promptness to all eligible individuals.” 42 U. S. C. §602 (a) (10).

The question to be decided is whether these interpretive principles are to be applied to the EA program' as well.

A

The short answer is that, since §402 (a) (10) on its face applies only to “aid to families with dependent children” and not to the separately designated program of “emergency aid to needy families with children,” it cannot be the basis for making the § 406 (e) eligibility requirements mandatory on the States.

The Court of Appeals recognized that §402 (a) (10) was limited by its language to AFDC, but nevertheless concluded that Congress intended to treat EA “in the same way” because it is “part of the same statutory scheme,” and rooted in the “same Congressional concern with [the] deprivation of children that brought forth the AFDC program . . . .” Mandley I, 523 F. 2d, at 422. But Congress’ choice of precise language in this complex statute cannot be glossed over with such generalities.

The § 402 “state plan for aid and services to needy families with children” is the central, organizing element of the Title IV-A program. A State’s plan establishes both its funding relationship with the Federal Government and the substantive terms of all Title IV-A programs in which it has elected to participate. Thus, the plan reflects not only the basic AFDC program of cash assistance defined in § 406 (b), but also Title XX social services, see §402 (a) (15) and 42 U. S. C. § 1397 et seq. (1970 ed., Supp. Y), and, if the State chooses to adopt them, the optional programs of EA, defined in § 406 (e), and AFDC-Unemployed Fathers (AFDG-UF), established by §407.

Section 402 (a) lists some 20 specific requirements for which a state plan “must provide.” Some clearly apply to the plan as a whole. These generally concern program administration. E. g,, § 402 (a)(1) (“provide that it shall be in effect in all political subdivisions of the State”); § 402 (a) (5) (“provide . . . such methods of administration ... as are found by the Secretary to be necessary [and] proper . . .”); § 402 (a) (9) (“provide safeguards which restrict the use or disclosure of information concerning applicants or recipients . . .”). Others, like §402 (a) (10), refer specifically to “aid to families with dependent children.” E. g., § 402 (a) (7) (“provide that the State agency shall, in determining need, take into consideration any other income and resources of any child or relative claiming aid to families with dependent children”); § 402 (a) (11) (“provide for prompt notice ... to the State child support collection agency ... of the furnishing of aid to families with dependent children with respect to a child who has been deserted or abandoned . . .”).

The term “aid to families with dependent children” is given a very specific meaning in § 406 (b) — -and “emergency assistance to needy families with children” as defined in § 406 (e) means, as we have observed, something quite different. It is true that both the EA and AFDC programs must be reflected in a State’s § 402 plan, and both will be governed by those parts of § 402 that apply to the plan as a whole. But there is no basis for assuming that, when § 402 refers specifically to AFDC, those references are either meaningless or inadvertent. On the contrary, there is every reason to suppose that the exclusion of EA from specific substantive requirements of § 402, in particular § 402 (a) (10)’s imposition of mandatory eligibility standards, was deliberate, since the absence of mandatory eligibility standards is wholly consistent with the nature and purpose of the EA program.

B

The EA program was adopted by means of an amendment to § 406 defining the new term “emergency assistance to needy families with children.” Pub. L. 90-248, § 206 (b), 81 Stat. 893. But nowhere in the EA statute is there a precise definition of eligibility comparable to the terms that have been held mandatory in AFDC. As to the latter, the term “aid to families with dependent children” is defined in § 406 (b) as “money payments ... in behalf of [a] dependent child . . . .” The term “dependent child” is separately defined in § 406 (a) as a needy child who has been deprived of parental support, is living with specified relatives, and is either under the age of 18 or under the age of 21 and regularly attending school. It is this very specific definition of “dependent child” in § 406 (a) that has been held to be mandatory upon the States in King v. Smith, 392 U. S. 309 (“deprived of parental support”), Carleson v. Remillard, 406 U. S. 598 (“continued absence from the home”), and Townsend v. Swank, 404 U. S. 282 (“regularly attending a school”).

On the other hand, the term “emergency assistance to needy families with children” is defined in § 406 (e) as payments and services furnished “in the case of a needy child” who meets certain requirements and is facing destitution. The structure of this statutory provision thus parallels § 406 (b) — i. e., while it describes eligible persons, it is in terms a definition of the program for which federal funding is available. But in the EA program there is no separate provision, parallel to § 406 (a), that defines the terms used to describe eligible persons. There is no statutory language, therefore, that can reasonably be understood as imposing uniform standards of eligibility on every state EA program.

The conclusion that Congress in fact intended to treat EA and AFDC quite differently is fully consistent with its purposes in enacting the EA program. Unlike the basic AFDC program and the optional AFDC-UF extension, EA is not a comprehensive system of income maintenance, but rather a program designed to allow quick, ad hoc responses to immediate needs. Indeed one of the primary purposes of making EA available to persons not receiving or eligible for AFDC was to “encourag[e] the States to move quickly in family crises, supplying the family promptly with appropriate services,” in the hope that this “would in many cases preclude the necessity for the family having to go on [AFDC] assistance on a more or less permanent basis.” 113 Cong. Rec. 23054 (1967) (remarks of Cong. Mills). This purpose reflects not only an awareness of the distinct difference between AFDC and EA, but also an understanding that EA would not be surrounded with all of the trappings that § 402 requires of the ongoing AFDC cash-payments program. In short, EA was designed “to assure needed care for children, to focus maximum effort on self-support by families, and to provide more flexible and appropriate tools to accomplish these objectives.” S. Rep. No. 744, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 165 (1967). (Emphasis supplied.)

As a matter of historical fact, Congress has always left the States broad discretion in shaping the programs that, like EA, authorize assistance to persons not eligible for AEDC in the hope of preventing lasting welfare dependency. Under the former § 406 (d) family services program the States had “considerable latitude in providing services to nonwelfare recipients on the grounds that they [were] ‘former or potential’ recipients.” S. Rep. No. 93-1356, p. 9 (1974). And the declared purpose of the new Title XX social services program enacted in 1975, 42 U. S. C. § 1397 et seq. (1970 ed., Supp. Y), was to “encourag[e] each State, as far as -practicable under the conditions in that State, to furnish services directed at the goal of . . . achieving or maintaining economic self-support to prevent, reduce, or eliminate dependency. . . .” 42 U. S. C. § 1397 (1970 ed., Supp. Y). (Emphasis supplied.) The legislative history of that statutory program reflects Congress’ awareness that the very magnitude of its purpose would require that “the States . . . have the ultimate decision-making authority in fashioning their own social service programs within the limits of funding established by Congress.” S. Rep. No. 93-1356, supra, at 6.

By the same token, the very breadth of the potential reach of EA — to virtually any family with needy children of a certain age that faces a risk of destitution — argues against the inference that Congress intended to require participating States to extend aid to all who were potentially eligible under § 406 (e). A literal application of all of the § 406 (e) standards, as required by the Court of Appeals’ proposed order, would create an entirely open-ended program, not susceptible of meaningful fiscal or programmatic control by the States.

The Court of Appeals believed that under its interpretation of the Act Illinois would retain “substantial control” of its program through its ability to limit the amount of assistance actually paid:

“It will be able to choose the level of benefits that it will provide and to set the standard of need. It may reasonably limit the amounts paid out in emergency assistance, Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471,... but it will not be able to declare ineligible those who come within the federal definition of eligibility in [§ 406 (e)]. . . . This need not result in additional expense to the state but with existing appropriations should at least result in helping a broader number of persons, although more moderately than at present.” Mandley I, 523 F. 2d, at 422-423.

But this application of the distinction drawn in the AFDC cases between eligibility criteria and financial need standards, see supra, at 740, fundamentally misconceives the purpose of the EA program. A family that is facing destitution because its home has burned down is not helped at all by a “moderate” grant insufficient to see it through the crisis. As the Illinois Director of the Department of Public Aid stated in his report to the Legislative Advisory Committee on Public Aid, the decision in Mandley I created an untenable tension between fiscal and programmatic integrity in the EA system:

“But even if the Department could so limit [expenditures as suggested by the Court of Appeals] the results would be to divide a limited amount of Emergency Assistance money among a very expanded group of individuals, thus reducing the amount of assistance paid in each individual case to a meaninglessly small amount. The agency is thus faced with the prospect, if it continues the program, of potentially unlimited financial expenses, if it meets actual need in Emergency Assistance payments, or the payment of meaninglessly small amounts (and the possibility of legal challenge and subsequent mandatory order of additional financial payments).”

The intent of Congress in enacting EA thus would not be furthered by a statutory interpretation that requires a State to meet less than what it believes is the actual emergency need of an eligible family in order to retain financial control of its program. On the other hand, that intent will be effectuated by the natural reading we give to the relevant statutory provisions. Neither § 402 (a) (10), which maltes AFDC eligibility criteria mandatory, nor § 406(e), which defines the permissible scope of an EA program for purposes of federal funding, imposes mandatory eligibility standards on States that elect to participate in the EA program.

For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Mr. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.

       The AFDC program is established and defined in several related provisions of Title IY-A of the Social Security Act. Section 406 (b) of the Act, as set forth in 42 U. S. C. § 606 (b), provides in pertinent part: “The term 'aid to families with dependent children’ means money payments with respect to, or . . . medical care in behalf of or any type of remedial care recognized under State law in behalf of a dependent child . . . The term “dependent child” is defined in § 406 (a), 42 U. S. C. § 606 (a), as
      “a needy child (1) who has been deprived of parental support or care by reason of the death, continued absence from the home, or physical or mental incapacity of a parent, and who is living with [specified relatives] in a place of residence maintained by one or more of such relatives as his or their own home, and (2) who is (A) under the age of eighteen, or (B) under the age of twenty-one and (as determined by the State in accordance with standards prescribed by the Secretary) a student regularly attending a school . . . [or] course of vocational or technical training . . .

       Section 406 (e) of the Act, as set forth in 42 U. S. C. § 606 (e), provides in pertinent part:
      “(1) The term ‘emergency assistance to needy families with children’ means any of the following, furnished for a period not in excess of 30 days in any 12-month period, in the case of a needy child under the age of 21 who is . . . living with any of the relatives specified in subsection (a) (1) . . . but only where such child is without available resources, the payments, care, or services involved as necessary to avoid destitution of such child or to provide living arrangements in a home for such child, and such destitution . . . did not arise because such child or relative refused without good cause to accept employment or training for employment—
      “(A) money payments, payments in kind, or such other payments as the State agency may specify ... or medical care or any other type of remedial care recognized under State law on behalf of, such child or any other member of the household in which he is living, and
      “(B) such services as may be specified by the Secretary;
      “but only with respect to a State whose State plan approved under section 602 of this title includes provision for such assistance.
      “(2) Emergency assistance as authorized under paragraph (1) may be provided ... to migrant workers with families in the State or in such part or parts thereof as the State shall designate/’

       The complaint also alleged that the Illinois program violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Illinois Public Aid Code.
      While none of the defendants questioned the District Court's subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals properly considered the question sua sponte. It held that the District Court had jurisdiction of claims against the state defendants under 28 U. S. C. § 1343 and 42 U. S. C. § 1983 since the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims were not insubstantial. Mandley v. Trainor, 523 F. 2d 415, 419 n. 2 (Mandley I).

      It found the question of jurisdiction over the federal defendants more troublesome, ibid. We express no view as to the Court of Appeals’ theory of jurisdiction in light of the intervening amendment of 28 U. S. C. § 1331, which, by eliminating the requirement of $10,000 in controversy in any action “against the United States, any agency thereof, or any officer or employee thereof in his official capacity,” 28 U. S. C. § 1331 (a) (1976 ed.), clearly confers jurisdiction over the federal defendants in these cases. Andrus v. Charlestone Stone Products Co., ante, at 607-608, n. 6.

       As stated in the order, any child:
      “(i) who is under the age of 21,
      “(ii) who is living with any of the relatives specified in §406 (a)(1) of the Act in a place of residence maintained by such relative as a home,
      “(iii) where such child is without available resources,
      “ (iv) where emergency assistance is necessary to avoid destitution of or to provide living arrangements in a home for such child, and
      “(v) such destitution did not arise because such child or relative refused without good cause to accept employment or training for employment.”

       The order would further require HEW to “file with the court proposed regulations governing emergency assistance, which proposed regulations shall be in accord with the opinion of the Court of Appeals, with this order and with 45 CFR §233.10 (a) (1) (ii) (A).”
      The plaintiffs’ originally proposed order would have specifically required that the regulations “include, inter alia, definitions of such terms as ‘necessary to avoid destitution’ and ‘lack of available resources’ which are compatible with providing emergency assistance when a needy child is approaching destitution.” While the Court of Appeals thought “it would be salutary to include such definitions in the new regulation,” it declined to “order HEW specifically to include any items in its new regulation.” 545 F. 2d, at 1073.

       The petitioners have not raised in this Court the claim that the validity of the proposed AFDC special-needs program was beyond the scope of the pleadings in this case.

       We agree with the Court of Appeals that the cases were not rendered moot by Illinois’ decision to withdraw from the § 406 (e) program. For even if the proposed arrangement is entirely legal under §§402 and 403 (a)(1), the State’s decision to withdraw voluntarily from the §406 (e) program in no way mooted the Court of Appeals’ prior determination that that program was being operated in violation of federal law. See United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U. S. 629.
      By granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss, as it was bound to do if the case was indeed moot, the District Court rendered the entire proceeding a nullity. There was no longer any judgment binding on the defendants to prevent them from returning to the old program. And, while the defendants’ good-faith representation that they had no intention of doing so might properly have led the District Court to deny in-junctive relief, see Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U. S. 321, it could not operate to deprive the successful plaintiffs, and indeed the public, of a final and binding determination of the legality of the old practice. United States v. W. T. Grant Co., supra, at 632.
      Since the Court of Appeals correctly concluded that the District Court had erred in dismissing the case as moot, the controversy was still alive as to the legality of both the old EA program and the proposed AFDC special-needs program. We note that, in a status report to the Illinois Advisory Committee on Public Aid, the State’s Director of the Department of Public Aid stated that he intended to request that "HEW clarify its [§406 (e) ] Emergency Assistance Program [since] there are aspects of a [§406 (e) ] program that we feel superior to a special need program and we would prefer, if so allowed, to maintain the [§406 (e)] Emergency Assistance Program of the present scope.” (This status report was filed in the District Court as Exhibit 1 to Plaintiffs’ Answer to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss.) Thus while the Court of Appeals had already passed on the legality of the Illinois EA program in Mandley I, there was no jurisdictional bar to its directing entry of a judgment on remand from Mandley II resolving the entire dispute by enjoining the operation of both programs.

       The record does not contain an actual proposal for the contemplated special-needs program, since Illinois had not at the time of the Court of Appeals’ decision drafted or submitted such a plan to HEW for approval. The court assumed, and the parties agreed, that the program, would parallel the old EA program: i. e., it would cover emergencies in AFDC families arising out of the actual or threatened loss of shelter due to damage or eviction and the immediate needs of presumptively eligible AFDC applicants.

       “For the first time, the Federal Government will match money for emergency assistance. This has not been in the law before. For a period of 30 days, emergency assistance can be paid in cases where they cannot meet other qualifications.” 113 Cong. Rec. 36319 (1967) (remarks of Sen. Curtis). (Emphasis supplied.) See also S. Rep. No. 744, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 166 (1967).

       Even if their import were clearer, as an expression of Congress’ understanding as to the scope of the pre-existing AFDC statute, such post hoc observations by a single member of Congress carry little if any weight. See Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U. S. 702, 714.

         The States have a “great deal of discretion” in setting the standard of need, and “some States include in their ‘standard of need’ items that others do not take into account.” Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U. S. 397, 408.

       U. S. Dept. of HEW, Handbook of Public Assistance Administration, Part IV, §3131 (3) (1966). Current regulations provide that “[i]f the State agency includes special need items in its standard [the state plan must] (a) describe those that will be recognized, and the circumstances under which they will be included, and (6) provide that they will be considered in the need determination for all applicants and recipients requiring them.” 45 CFR § 233.20 (a) (2) (v) (1977).

         Illinois and Minnesota. AFDC Survey 59,100.

       Arizona, Connecticut, Guam, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and South Dakota. Id., at 11, 27, 46, 69, 73, 100, 125, 179.

       California’s plan provided for “replacement of clothing and certain household items because of sudden or unusual circumstances beyond [the] control of [the] family.” Id., at 19. Connecticut, North Dakota, and Rhode Island covered needs arising out of “catastrophic” events as special-circumstance items. Id., at 27, 147, 171.

       The original plan actually invalidated in Mandley I narrowed EA eligibility by limiting it to persons also eligible (or presumptively eligible) for AFDC, and by recognizing as circumstances of emergency need only an AFDC recipient’s loss of shelter due to damage or eviction, and an AFDC applicant’s immediate need for household effects. Other States, however, have imposed different kinds of restrictions on EA eligibility. Some, for example, exclude AFDC recipients if the emergency need is one theoretically covered by the basic assistance grant, reasoning that the State should not pay double benefits when recipients have failed to budget their resources properly. See generally Note, Meeting Short-Term Needs of Poor Families: Emergency Assistance for Needy Families with Children, 60 Cornell L. Rev. 879, 888-892 (1975).
      The injunction ordered by the Court of Appeals in Mandley II apparently reaches all such limitations. It requires Illinois, SO' long as it receives any funds under Title IV-A and operates an emergency aid program, to provide assistance to all persons who fit the federal description of eligible individuals, and it prohibits HEW from "approving state plans for emergency assistance which limit eligibility more narrowly than § 406 (e)

       By controlling these two elements, which determine actual payments under the program, every State retains the ability to' control its total AFDC expenditures. Cf. Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U. S., at 539-541.

       By contrast, the other optional Title IV-A program, AFDC-UF, is defined by reference to the key statutory term “dependent child.” §407 (a), 42 U. S. C. § 607 (a). This indicates that when Congress intended that a separate program should be treated “in the same way” as AFDC, it was able to express that intent clearly by actually incorporating the identical terms.

       The Court of Appeals thought that “the problem of setting workable definitions for the somewhat amorphous eligibility criteria in [§ 406 (e) could] be addressed by HEW rule-making,” Mandley I, 523 F. 2d, at 422-423, and indeed required such rulemaking in its Mandley II order. See n. 5, supra. The statute does not, however, require the Secretary to promulgate implementing regulations to clarify the scope of § 406 (e). Compare § 406 (e) with § 407 (a) (AFDC-UF). Cf. Batterton v. Francis, 432 U. S. 416. And the regulations in fact adopted by the Secretary interpret the statute as leaving the States with broad discretion as to EA eligibility requirements. 45 CFR §233.120 (1977). The Secretary’s contemporaneous interpretation of the statute is entitled to considerable deference. New York Dept. of Social Services v. Dublino, 413 U. S. 405, 421. In the absence of an express delegation of authority to the Secretary, there is simply no basis for assuming that Congress intended that he, rather than the States, must make definite — and mandatory — the generalized standards of eligibility it wrote into the EA statute. Cf. n. 21, infra.

       Section 406 (d) of the Act, as set forth in 42 U. S.C. § 606 (d), defined “family services” as “services to a family or any member thereof for the purpose of preserving, rehabilitating, reuniting, or strengthening the family, and such other services as will assist members of a family to attain or retain capability for the maximum self-support and personal independence.” Section 406 (d) has been repealed and replaced by the new Title XX Social Services program. Pub. L. 93-647, §§ 2, 3(a)(5), 88 Stat. 2337, 2348. See 42 U. S. C. § 1397 et seq. (1970 ed., Supp. V).

       This conclusion was based on the “lengthy history of legislative and regulatory action in the social service area [which] made it clear . . . that the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare can neither mandate meaningful programs nor impose effective controls upon the States.” S. Rep. No. 93-1356, at 6.

       The Court of Appeals did not reach the respondents’ constitutional and state-law claims, see n. 3, supra. They remain open for consideration on remand.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Me. Justice Maeshall Mr. Justice Powell,

license: Public Domain

text:
    AGOSTO v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
    No. 76-1410.
    Argued February 28, 1978 —
    Decided June 6, 1978

      Mabshall, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Burger, C. J., and BreNNAN, Stewart, White, BlackmuN, and SteveNS, JJ., joined. Powell, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which RehNQUist, J., joined, post, p. 761.

      Robert S. Bixby argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner.

      Marion L. Jetton argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Solicitor General McCree, Assistant Attorney General Civiletti, Deputy Solicitor General Easter-br-ook, and John H. Burnes, Jr.

   Me. Justice Maeshall

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question for decision is whether petitioner has made a sufficient showing in support of his claim to United States citizenship to entitle him to a de novo judicial determination of that claim under § 106 (a) (5) (B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U. S. C. § 1105a (a)(5)(B) (1976 ed.).

I

In 1967, the Immigration and Naturalization Service began deportation proceedings against petitioner, Joseph Agosto, by issuance of a show-cause order charging that he was dfeportable as an alien who had unlawfully entered the United States. App. 4-6. Petitioner opposed deportation, claiming that he was born in this country and therefore is a citizen of the United States not subject to deportation. Over the course of several years, a series of hearings were held before an Immigration Judge, at which the Service presented documentary evidence in an effort to show that petitioner was born in Italy in 1927 of unknown parents, placed in a foundling home there, and ultimately adopted by an Italian couple. Petitioner presented testimony from himself and several other witnesses to show that he was born in Ohio of an Italian mother and sent to Italy at an early age to reside with the aforementioned couple.

In April 1973, the Immigration Judge issued the deportation order challenged here, rejecting the evidence tendered by petitioner and his witnesses that he was born in the United States. App. 23-59. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. It noted that, “[i]f believed, the testimony of [petitioner's witnesses] clearly refutes the Service's otherwise strong documentary demonstration of [petitioner's] alienage” and that “[i]t is not beyond the realm of possibility that [petitioner's] claim to United States citizenship is legitimate.” Pet. for Cert. viii. The Board nevertheless accepted the Immigration Judge's credibility determinations and found that the “Service’s case as to alienage is clear, convincing and unequivocal.” Id., at xi.

Agosto petitioned for review of the Board’s decision in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pursuant to § 106 of the Act, and claimed that, pursuant to § 106 (a) (5), he was entitled to a de novo hearing in District Court to determine whether he was a United States citizen. Section 106 (a)(5) provides that, whenever a petitioner “claims to be a national of the United States and makes a showing that his claim is not frivolous,” the court of appeals is to transfer the proceedings to the district court for a hearing on that claim if “a genuine issue of material fact as to the petitioner’s nationality is presented.” When no genuine issue of material fact is presented, the court of appeals has authority to “pass upon the issues presented.”

The Court of Appeals, with one judge dissenting, refused to transfer the case to the District Court for a de novo hearing on petitioner’s citizenship claim, and affirmed the deportation order. Pet. for Cert, i; affirmance order, 549 F. 2d 806. It held that “[t]he evidence presented to the immigration judge does not disclose a colorable claim to United States nationality.” Pet. for Cert. ii. Further, the Court of Appeals apparently concluded that in order to obtain a de novo hearing petitioner was required to present “substantial evidence” in support of his citizenship claim and that he had failed to do so. Ibid. The dissenting judge, while acknowledging that as a factfinder she would not have credited petitioner’s testimony, stated that “I do not believe our legally assigned role includes a decision on credibility, and, on that basis, I am unable to say that petitioner’s evidence, if believed, would not present a colorable claim to American citizenship.” Ibid.

We granted certiorari, 434 U. S. 901 (1977), to consider the proper construction of § 106 (a) (5) (B), and we now reverse.

II

In 1961, Congress enacted § 106 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U. S. C. § 1105a (1976 ed.), in order “to create a single, separate, statutory form of judicial review of administrative orders for the deportation ... of aliens from the United States.” H. R. Rep. No. 1086, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 22 (1961). This statutory provision eliminated district court review of deportation orders under § 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. §702 (1976 ed.), and replaced it with direct review in the courts of appeals based on the administrative record. Congress carved out one class of cases, however, where de novo review in district court would be available: cases in which the person subject to deportation claims to be a United States citizen.

In carving out this class of cases, Congress was aware of our past decisions holding that the Constitution requires that there be some provision for de novo judicial determination of claims to American citizenship in deportation proceedings. See H. R. Rep. No. 1086, supra, at 29; H. R. Rep. No. 665, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 15 (1961). In Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U. S. 276, 284 (1922), the Court observed:

“Jurisdiction in the executive to order deportation exists only if the person arrested is an alien. ... To deport one who . . . claims to be a citizen, obviously deprives him of liberty, . . . [and] may result also in loss of both property and life; or of all that makes life worth living.”

We therefore held that a resident of this country has a right to de novo judicial determination of a claim to United States citizenship which is supported “by evidence sufficient, if believed, to entitle [him] to a finding of citizenship.” Id., at 282. See also United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U. S. 149, 152-153 (1923). In Kessler v. Strecker, 307 U. S. 22, 34-35 (1939), we reaffirmed that holding and indicated in dictum that judicial determination of citizenship claims is required where “substantial evidence” is presented to support the citizenship claim.

In the instant case, the court below stated that petitioner failed to satisfy the standard of Kessler v. Strecker, supra; the court thus implicitly held that the standard of “substantial evidence” had been incorporated into § 106 (a)(5)(B). Pet. for Cert. ii. We disagree. Although Congress intended § 106 (a)(5) to satisfy any constitutional requirements relating to de novo judicial determination of citizenship claims, supra, the statute clearly does not restrict de novo review to cases in which the “substantial evidence” test is met. Rather than incorporating the specific language of Kessler into the statute, as it easily could have done, Congress chose instead to require hearings where there is “a genuine issue of material fact” — a standard that is different from but as familiar as the substantial-evidence standard.

This statutory language is virtually identical to that embodied in Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56, which governs summary judgment motions. Under Rule 56, district court litigants opposing summary judgment have a right to a trial whenever there exists a “genuine issue as to any material fact.” We may reasonably assume that, in using the language from Rule 56 as the standard for granting de novo district court hearings on citizenship claims, Congress intended the language to be interpreted similarly to that in Rule 56. “'[W]here words are employed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning at common law or in the law of this country they are presumed to have been used in that sense unless the context compels to the contrary.’ ” Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U. S. 575, 583 (1978), quoting Standard Oil v. United States, 221 U. S. 1, 59 (1911). The Court of Appeals decision in this case, to the extent that it holds de novo review to be required only where the petitioner presents substantial evidence in support of his claim to citizenship, is thus contrary to the plain language and clear meaning of the statute.

Nor does anything in the legislative history indicate that Congress intended to require de novo judicial determination of citizenship claims only when such determinations would be compelled by the Kessler “substantial evidence” standard. Although there are references in the legislative history suggesting that a claim to citizenship must itself be “substantial,” these statements are not amenable to the interpretation that substantial evidence is required in support of the claim before a judicial hearing would be provided. See, e. g., H. R. Rep. No. 1086, supra, at 29; H. R. Rep. No. 565, supra, at 5. While Congress in enacting § 106 sought to “expedite the deportation of undesirable aliens by preventing successive dilatory appeals to various federal courts,” Foti v. INS, 375 U. S. 217, 226 (1963), this concern hardly justifies the assumption that Congress intended to impose a steep hurdle to judicial determination of citizenship claims. None of the abuses of judicial review catalogued by Congress in the Committee Reports related to citizenship claims. See H. R. Rep. No. 565, supra, at 7-13. Rather, Congress was primarily concerned with the filing of repetitive petitions for review and with frivolous claims of impropriety in the deportation proceedings. See, e. g., H. R. Rep. No. 1086, supra, at 23, 33; 107 Cong. Rec. 19650 (1961) (remarks of Sen. Eastland); 105 Cong. Rec. 12724 (1959) (remarks of Rep. Walter).

Since summary judgment principles are controlling here, it follows that a court of appeals cannot refuse to allow a de novo review of a citizenship claim if the evidence presented in support of the claim would be sufficient to entitle a litigant to trial were such evidence presented in opposition to a motion for summary judgment. More specifically, just as a district court generally cannot grant summary judgment based on its assessment of the credibility of the evidence presented, see Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 368 U. S. 464, 467-468 (1962); 6 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 56.02 [10], p. 56-45 (2d ed. 1976), so too a court of appeals is not at liberty to deny an individual a de novo hearing on his claim of citizenship because of the court’s assessment of the credibility of the evidence, see Pignatello v. Attorney General of the United States, 350 F. 2d 719, 723 (CA2 1965). Particularly where the evidence consists of the testimony of live witnesses concerning material factual issues, it will seldom if ever be appropriate to deny a de novo hearing, since “[i]t is only when the witnesses are present and subject to cross-examination that their credibility and the weight to be given their testimony can be appraised.” Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., supra, at 473.

Ill

Applying the appropriate standard to the record in this case, it is apparent that the Court of Appeals erred when it failed to transfer the case to the District Court for a de novo hearing. The Service’s proof that .petitioner is not a United States citizen would certainly be sufficient, if uncontradicted, to establish his birth in Agrigento, Italy, in July 1927. However, the evidence adduced by petitioner to support his claim of American citizenship creates “genuine issue [s] of material fact” that can only be resolved in a de novo hearing in' the District Court.

Petitioner acknowledges that the Service’s documentary proof pertains to him. This proof includes an entry from the city of Agrigento registry of births for 1927 relating that a 75-year-old handy woman appeared before the registrar and declared that “at 4:00 a. m. on the 17th day of [July] in a house situated in Via Oblati, of a woman who does not want to be named, a male child was born, which she presents to me and to whom she gives the first name of Vincenzo and the surname of Di Paola.” Record 667. The city registry also indicates that the child was sent to a foundling home. In addition, the foundling home’s registry indicates that a Vincenzo Di Paola was born on July 16,1927, and was consigned to Crocifissa Porello, petitioner’s adoptive mother and wife of Pietro Pianetti, petitioner’s adoptive father, on August 26, 1927. The last piece of documentary evidence is a translation from the foundling home record showing that Vincenzo Di Paola was baptized on July 18, 1927.

Petitioner claims, however, that the records regarding Vincenzo Di Paola were made at the request of his maternal grandfather to hide the true facts of his illegitimate birth in the United States. Petitioner’s evidence in support of his claim to United States citizenship consisted of his own testimony and that of his adoptive parents, Crocifissa and Pietro Pianetti, and his alleged half brother, Carmen Ripolino.

According to the testimony of the Pianettis, petitioner was the illegitimate son of Crocifissa Pianetti’s sister, Angela Porello, who left her Italian husband and two daughters in 1921 to move to the United States with her cousin Giacomo Ripolino. Through correspondence with Angela, the Pianettis learned in about 1925 that petitioner had been born, that his father was Salvatore Agosto, and that Angela had at least two other children, including Carmen Ripolino. According to the Pianettis, petitioner was sent to live with them and with Angela’s parents because Angela could not care for petitioner in Ohio. The Pianettis testified that petitioner was never in the foundling home, but that the documents presented by the Service concerning petitioner’s birth in Italy were created by Angela’s father to hide the fact that petitioner was his illegitimate grandson.

Carmen Ripolino corroborated the testimony of the Pianettis in important respects. He testified that his mother was Angela Porello, and that she told him when he was a child that he had two half sisters in Italy and a half brother whom she had sent there to live with her mother. Although Carmen Ripolino admitted having no independent knowledge that petitioner was the brother who had been sent to Italy, his testimony corroborated that of the Pianettis that Angela Porello gave birth to a son in this country whom she sent to Italy to live with relatives.

Petitioner’s testimony was only partially consistent with that of his witnesses. Because-he possessed a birth certificate belonging to one Joseph Agosto, born in Cleveland in 1921, which had allegedly been sent to petitioner in Italy by another American relative between 1948 and 1950, petitioner maintained for a time that he was that Joseph Agosto, the son of Salvatore Agosto and his wife Carmela Todaro. The birth certificate had not actually been issued, however, until sometime after petitioner claimed to have received it. At the same time petitioner also testified that he had been told that his mother’s name was Angela Porello and that he lived with his grandfather and the Pianettis after coming to Italy as a small boy. Petitioner acknowledged that he had been known by different names at different times.

There is no doubt that petitioner has not told one story consistently throughout his deportation hearings and has attempted to establish his citizenship by relying on any possible shred of evidence. Nor is there any doubt that petitioner has told different stories about his past to diffeient courts. But it is noteworthy that, starting in his- first deportation hearing,, petitioner has acknowledged that he is not certain of his true parental origins, and that he-had been told that his mother was Angela Porello. And, given the obvious confusion and uncertainty surrounding the circumstances of ■ petitioner’s birth (under either the Service’s theory or that of petitioner), it is hardly surprising that petitioner cannot say with any degree of certainty who his true parents might have been.

We need not decide whether petitioner’s testimony, standing alone, is so inherently incredible in light of its internal inconsistencies as to justify denial of de novo judicial review of the citizenship claim. In this case, the citizenship claim is supported by the testimony of three witnesses whose story, while highly unusual, certainly cannot be rejected as a matter of law. Their disputed testimony concerning petitioner’s birth in this country and subsequent upbringing in Italy is in most respects no more unusual than their unchallenged testimony concerning other aspects of this family’s relations. To accept the present claim to United States citizenship, the District Court would need only to believe that petitioner was born to Angela Porello in Ohio in the mid-1920’s; that he was sent by her to live with the Pianettis in Italy; and that Angela’s father had the birth records in his native town falsified to prevent public knowledge of the birth of an illegitimate child to his daughter while still permitting him and other members of his family to raise the child. These events, while out of the ordinary, are not so extraordinary as to compel disbelief in their occurrence. Even the Board of Immigration Appeals, which rejected petitioner’s claim of citizenship, stated that “[i]t is not beyond the realm of possibility that [petitioner’s] claim to United States citizenship is legitimate.” Pet. for Cert. viii.

Since the documentary evidence submitted by the Service would be refuted by the testimony of petitioner’s witnesses if that testimony were accepted by the trier of fact, ibid., there is plainly a genuine issue of material fact for the District Court on the question of petitioner’s citizenship. Although as the trier of fact the District Court might reject the testimony of these witnesses because of their interest in the outcome, that determination has been committed by Congress to the district courts by § 106 (a) (5) (B) of the Act and not to the courts of appeals. The decision of the Court of Appeals must therefore be reversed and the case remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

Mr. Justice Powell,

with whom Mu. Justice Rehnquist joins,

dissenting.

The Court today has construed a statute in a way that rewards falsehood and frustrates justice. The statute is § 106 (a) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, 8 U. S. C. § 1105a (a) (1976 ed.), adopted in 1961 as part of a general revision of the statutory provisions governing judicial review of deportation orders. The general revision was designed to prevent repetitious litigation of frivolous claims, and “dilatory tactics” used to forestall deportation, by eliminating in most instances any review by district courts of deportation decisions. Foti v. INS, 375 U. S. 217, 224-225 (1963).

The general rule under § 106 (a) leaves deportation matters largely to administrative proceedings, subject to review by a court of appeals to ensure that the administrative decision is supported by “reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” 8 TJ. S. C. § 1105 (a) (4) (1976 ed.). Section 106 (a) (5), quoted ante, at 751-752, n. 2, provides a narrow exception to the general rule when the deportation proceeding involves a person claiming to be a national of the United-States. In such a proceeding, § 106 (a)(5) requires a reviewing court of appeals to refer the case to a district court for a de novo trial when the claimant clears two hurdles: first he must show that his claim to United States citizenship is not “frivolous,” and then that its resolution turns on “a genuine issue of material fact.” As indicated in the Court’s opinion, the statute is hardly a model of artful draftsmanship. Even so, it is unnecessary to construe it, as the Court does, to require a trial de novo in federal district court in response to any asserted claim to citizenship turning on questions of “credibility,” however farfetched.

There can be no case less deserving of further factual review than this one. Petitioner is an ex-convict, convicted of several crimes involving moral turpitude. He has told five different stories with respect to his nationality, inventing new fabrications to meet the Service’s evidence or whenever they served other purposes. See ante, at 759 n. 10. No one has believed his stories. Yet he has proved himself a master at exploiting the safeguards designed to vindicate bona fide- — ■ not specious — claims of citizenship. The Court’s holding totally frustrates the intent of Congress in enacting § 106 (a), in response to the “growing frequency of judicial actions being instituted by undesirable aliens whose cases have no legal basis or merit, but which are brought solely for the purpose of preventing or delaying indefinitely their deportation from this country.” H. R. Rep. No. 1086, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 22-23 (1961). Rather than putting an end to this abuse of our generous procedures, the Court now concludes that petitioner is entitled to a de novo trial of a claim to citizenship so transparently false that none of the numerous judges who have passed on it believes it.

I

The Immigration Service claims that petitioner is an Italian by birth named Vincenzo Di Paola Pianetti, and that he is deportable because his most recent entry into the United States was fraudulent and because he has been convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude. The Service claims that petitioner last entered the United States in 1966, purporting to be a citizen of the United States and relying on the passport of Joseph Agosto. Petitioner claims he was born in Cleveland, Ohio, assigning various dates of birth from 1921 to 1927, and was named Joseph Agosto; that he was sent to Italy when he was 2 or 3 years old; that he lived there with his natural mother’s sister and her husband, who later “affiliated” him and gave him their name; and that he returned to the United States in 1951 or 1952. The issue ultimately is one of identity. If petitioner is “Agosto” rather than “Pianetti,” he is an American citizen. During the course of the instant proceedings, commenced in 1967, not a single administrative or judicial official has believed that petitioner is not the Italian-born Pianetti.

The proceedings in this case have been protracted. On September 5, 1967, the Service issued a show-cause order, and notice of hearing, seeking petitioner’s deportation. A full hearing was held before an Immigration Judge. The Service introduced documentary evidence demonstrating that petitioner was born, taken to a foundling home, and baptized in Agrigento, Italy, in 1927, and later was entrusted to the Pianettis. See ante, at 757. The Service also demonstrated that petitioner was married to an Italian woman in 1944 and had two daughters in Italy. At this first hearing, petitioner conceded that the documentary evidence pertained to him, but claimed that he really had been born in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1921, and was named Joseph Agosto. Petitioner produced a marriage certificate showing that he was married in Alaska in 1953, and that he claimed at the time to be 32 years old and not previously married. Petitioner testified that he was sent to Italy when he “was 4 or,5, and that his belief that he was bom in Cleveland was based entirely on the birth certificate which an uncle sent him from the United States. The Service countered with documentary evidence that the birth certificate pertained to a Joseph Agosto who had been born in Cleveland in 1921 and died in Italy in 1951, and an affidavit from Joseph Agosto’s sister that petitioner falsely was using the identity of her deceased brother.

The Immigration Judge sustained the charge of the Service and entered a deportation order. He concluded that petitioner “presented no credible evidence to show that he is not the person [Pianetti] whom the Government claims him to be.” App. 14. On appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals remanded the proceedings, “without reviewing the case on the merits,” for the Immigration Judge to consider petitioner's contention that he was nondeportable under § 241 (f) of the Act, 8 U. S. C. § 1251 (f) (1976 ed.), because of his marriage to an American citizen, Mary Marie Agosto.

Following a second hearing, the Immigration Judge again found petitioner not a citizen, deportable (not only because he had entered the United States without inspection but also because he had been convicted of several crimes involving moral turpitude), and not entitled to relief under §241 (f). Again petitioner appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. On this appeal petitioner conceded that a Joseph Agosto died in Italy in 1951, but maintained that there were “two Joseph Agostos,” both bom in Cleveland of the same father but different mothers. Petitioner explained the fact of only one birth certificate by saying that his mother had been the father’s mistress and that the birth of the legitimate Joseph Agosto had not been recorded. The Board again declined to reach the merits of petitioner’s claim to citizenship and remanded for consideration of “forgiveness” relief under §241 (f).

It was not until the third hearing in 1971 that petitioner produced three witnesses, the couple who adopted him in Italy and his supposed half-brother from Ohio, who testified in support of petitioner’s claim to citizenship. Petitioner abandoned his other stories of birth in 1921 or 1927, and maintained that he was born in Cleveland in 1924, the son of the father of the Joseph Agosto who was born in 1921. On April 11,1973, the Immigration Judge filed an exhaustive opinion concluding that all of petitioner’s various and contradictory stories were fabrications. App. 23-59. The opinion characterized petitioner as having had, since “he was sixteen years of age, ... a record of deceit, double-dealing and subterfuge.” Id., at 32. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. In the context of affirming the denial of discretionary relief from deportation, it observed that petitioner “knowingly gave false testimony before the immigration judge; his claim to citizenship has been knowingly false since its inception.” Pet. for Cert. xii.

Having finally exhausted his administrative remedies, petitioner appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. That court issued its memorandum decision on January 24, 1977, and sustained the deportation decision, saying: “The evidence presented to the immigration judge does not disclose a colorable claim to United States nationality; nor does it meet the standard set forth in Kessler v. Strecker, 307 U. S. 22, 35 (1939)Id., at ii.

We granted certiorari on October 17) 1977. 434 U. S. 901. Today the Court hands down a decision entitling petitioner to continue his 11-year saga, commencing with a trial de novo in a district court.

II

The first flaw in the Court’s reasoning is that it reads out of the statute the threshold requirement that the claim to United States nationality not be “frivolous.” The Court muses in a footnote, without support, that “ [t] he 'frivolousness’ standard apparently refers to the merits of the legal theory underlying the citizenship claim,” ante, at 754 n. 4, and therefore has been satisfied in this case because petitioner’s theory of citizenship — that he was bom in this country — is not frivolous.

Neither the language of the statute nor its legislative history sheds any helpful light on the intended meaning of the term “frivolous” for purposes of this statute. The term may well refer in some instances to the underlying legal theory of a claim. But to say that this is the exclusive meaning is virtually to read the term out of the statute. If all that is required for a claim to be considered nonfrivolous is that the alleged alien maintain that he was bom in this country, patently frivolous claims will pass the first threshold of the statute. If Congress thought that every claim to birth in this country, however tenuous, merited judicial trial rather than judicial review, one would assume it would have so provided rather than create a dual system of de novo fact-finding by both administrative and judicial proceedings. In addition, the legal theory underlying any claim to citizenship almost always will be that the purported citizen was born or naturalized in the United States. According to the Court’s theory, therefore, the underlying legal theory of a claim to citizenship rarely will be deemed “frivolous.”

We normally construe statutes to give meaning to each of their components. I read Congress’ intent to have been that the courts of appeals must examine the administrative record to determine whether a claim to citizenship is frivolous for any reason. And it would be difficult to find a more frivolous claim to citizenship than this one.

Ill

Assuming, arguendo, that petitioner’s claim is not frivolous, the Court of Appeals was required to transfer the case to a district court for a de novo hearing only if it concluded that a “genuine issue of material fact” existed. The Court today, applying the standard governing summary judgment in the federal courts, concludes that a genuine issue of material fact exists here because “the citizenship claim is supported by the testimony of three witnesses whose story, while highly unusual, certainly cannot be rejected as a matter of law.” Ante, at 760. The fallacy in this holding is twofold. First, it applies an erroneous standard. The Court assumes that Congress meant to import the summary judgment standard into an entirely different statutory scheme, simply because the same words appear in both contexts. While this is a superficially appealing approach, it abdicates our responsibility to construe the statute in light of its origin and purpose. The second flaw in the Court’s holding lies in its incorrect application of the summary judgment standard itself.

A

Section 106 (a) (5) apparently was enacted in order to satisfy the constitutional requirement, first enunciated in Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U. S. 276 (1922), that a resident who claims to be a United States citizen and supports the claim with the requisite quantum of proof is entitled to a judicial determination of his claim to citizenship. Id., at 282-285; see H. R. Rep. No, 1086, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 29 (1961). The Court held that two of the petitioners in Ng Fung Ho were entitled to a de novo judicial determination of their citizenship claim because they “supported the claim by evidence sufficient, if believed, to entitle them to a finding of citizenship.” 259 U. S., at 282.

The standard of proof required by Ng Fung Ho for a judicial hearing was restated in two later cases, both decided before the enactment of § 106 (a)(5). In United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U. S. 149 (1923) — which, like Ng Fung Ho, was written by Mr. Justice Brandéis — no claim to citizenship had been made. The Court observed, however, that “[i]f, in the deportation proceedings, Bilo-kumsky had claimed that he was a citizen and had supported the claim by substantial evidence, he would have been entitled to have his status finally determined by a judicial, as distinguished from an executive, tribunal.” 263 U. S., at 152 (citing Ng Fung Ho, supra) (emphasis supplied). In Kessler v. Strecker, 307 U. S. 22, 34-35 (1939), the Court again observed, citing Bilokumsky, that an alien is entitled to a trial de novo on a claim of citizenship if supported by “substantial evidence.” It is clear, therefore, that the constitutional requirement of a de novo judicial hearing is triggered only if the person claiming citizenship provides some substantial evidentiary support for his claim.

The Court’s conclusion that Congress intended to set a lower standard in § 106 (a) (5) is not supported by the legislative history. The Court acknowledges but disregards the fact that the House Reports antedating enactment of § 106 (a) (5) contain repeated references to “substantial” and “genuine” claims to citizenship. See ante, at 755; see also H. R. Rep. No. 1086, supra, at 28; H. R. Rep. No. 565, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 13, 15 (1961). In each of these Reports the reference to “a substantial claim of TJ. S. nationality” immediately precedes the observation that the statute was meant to satisfy the constitutional requirement articulated in Ng Fung Ho.

In the face of this unequivocal evidence of legislative intent, the Court errs in concluding that Congress meant to depart from the evidentiary standard stated in Ng Fung Ho, as interpreted in Bilokumsky and Kessler. The Court then compounds its error by holding that § 106 (a) (5) places a court of appeals, in reviewing a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, in the position of a district court ruling upon a motion for summary judgment at the outset of a trial. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56 (c). Although there is congruity in the “genuine issue of material fact” language, found in both § 106 (a) (5) and Rule 56 (c), there is a controlling difference in the settings in which this language is used.

In the usual civil trial, the summary judgment motion is-entertained before any hearing has taken place. If sustained, it forecloses all opportunity for the opposing party to present his case before the finder of fact. Subject to appeal, a decision in favor of the movant in effect deprives his opponent of a trial on the facts. The situation to which § 106 (a) (5) applies simply is not comparable. That section is part of an elaborate administrative procedure in which a claimant may present fully his evidence to an Immigration Judge and. then have it reviewed by the Board of Immigration Appeals. There is no summary- judgment procedure under the Act and-, consequently, no danger that a claimant will be denied a full evidentiary hearing. In this respect, the standard contained in § 106 (a) (5) is more like the standard governing directed verdicts, Fed. Rule Civ. Pr'oc. 50, than summary .judgments.

Although the Court of Appeals in this case itself did not observe the witnesses who testified on petitioner’s behalf, it was not required to ignore completely the unequivocal opinion of the Immigration Judge that petitioner’s witnesses had been “coached as to their testimony,” Pet. for Cert, viii; see App. 41, and that their stories were fabrications. ' Even if the Court of Appeals was not in as good a position to judge these matters as a judge ruling on a motion for directed verdict, neither was it as constricted as a judge ruling on a motion for summary judgment. As both motions are governed by the “genuine issue of material fact” standard, there is no reason to adopt the more restrictive but less appropriate analogy.

This case illustrates forcefully the inappropriateness of the summary judgment analogy. Petitioner has had three evi-dentiary hearings before an Immigration Judge, three appellate reviews by the Board of Immigration Appeals, and one review each by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court. One normally would expect that at the end of this elaborate sequence of hearings and reviews, the case would be concluded. Instead, the Court launches petitioner’s litigation anew, bowing to a form of words rather than the substance of justice. All that has occurred — the entire sequence of eight proceedings — is merely prologue. Petitioner’s case now starts afresh in a district court in the same way that any civil litigation would commence. He is free to change his testimony- — again—and to round up new witnesses who will swear to it. If he loses once more, he will have an appeal as of right to the Court of Appeals; from there, he may file another petition for certio-rari. This additional round of proceedings probably will take several years. Meanwhile, petitioner will continue to enjoy the privileges of American citizenship that he has consistently abused.

B

Even if one assumes with the Court that the summary judgment analogy is appropriate, today’s decision still is untenable. Under Rule 56 (c) itself, there must be a degree of substantiality to the evidence proffered in opposition to a summary judgment motion if the motion is to be defeated. See Firemen’s Mutual Ins. Co. v. Aponaug Mfg. Co., 149 F. 2d 359, 362 (CA5 1945); Whitaker v. Coleman, 115 F. 2d 305, 306 (CA5 1940); 10 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure §2725, p. 512 (1973); 6 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 56.15 [4], p. 56-521 (2d ed. 1976). See also Maroon v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 364 F. 2d 982, 989 (CA8 1966). A court never is required to accept evidence that is inherently incredible or “ Too incredible to be accepted by reasonable minds.’ ” 6 Moore, supra, at 56-621. I believe petitioner’s evidence reasonably cannot be viewed in any other light.

In concluding that there is a “genuine issue of material fact” presented on this record, under the standard applicable to a summary judgment motion, the Court relies primarily on the testimony of petitioner’s adoptive parents and supposed half brother, presented for the first time at petitioner’s third hearing before the Immigration Judge. In effect, the Court applies the summary judgment standard as if the only testimony on the record were that adduced at the third hearing. But if the summary judgment standard is to be applied, it is necessary to view the evidence submitted by petitioner in its totality — as if petitioner, in contesting a summary judgment motion, had submitted three sets of depositions containing precisely the same evidence presented by him at the three administrative hearings. A district court then would be confronted with three significantly different stories, each sworn to by petitioner, one belatedly corroborated by his coached kinsmen, and all of them contradicted by authenticated documentary evidence. I doubt that any district court would find petitioner’s evidence sufficient, viewed in its totality, to defeat a motion for summary judgment.

IV

However one may read the unclear language of § 106 (a)(5), it is at least clear that Congress did not intend duplicate judicial proceedings to follow administrative proceedings simply upon demand. If ‘all that § 106 (a) (5) requires is a swearing contest — even when the Government’s case is predicated on documents whose authenticity is uncontested — then every subject of deportation proceedings has it within his power to circumvent the obvious intention of the statutory scheme to minimize dilatory tactics by deportable aliens. The Court today has opened wide this inviting door.

       After petitioner’s first set of hearings, an Immigration Judge issued a deportation order, App. 18, which petitioner then appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. The Board remanded to permit the Immigration Judge to consider petitioner’s claim that he was entitled to relief from deportation pursuant to § 241 (f), 8 U. S. C. § 1251 (f) (1976 ed.), as the husband of a United States citizen, but did not consider petitioner’s other challenges to the finding that he was deportable. App. 19-20. At the hearing on remand, the Service lodged an additional charge against petitioner alleging that he was deportable because he had been convicted of crimes of moral turpitude. The Immigration Judge adhered to his finding that petitioner was deportable and not entitled to relief under § 241 (f). Record 677-691. On petitioner’s second appeal, the Board again remanded for a further determination of petitioner’s eligibility for § 241 (f) relief and to permit petitioner to produce certain witnesses in support of his claim to United States citizenship. Record 628-633. The deportation order challenged here was issued after petitioner’s third set of hearings, App. 23-59, and the Board affirmed the order. Pet. for Cert, iv-xiii.

       Section 106 (a) (5), as set forth in 8 U. S. C. § 1105a (a) (5) (1976 ed.), provides:
      “[W]henever any petitioner, who seeks review of an order under this section, claims to be a national of the United States and makes a showing that his claim is not frivolous, the court shall (A) pass upon the issues presented when it appears from the pleadings and affidavits filed by the parties that no genuine issue of material fact is presented; or (B) where a genuine issue of material fact as to the petitioner’s nationality is presented, transfer the proceedings to a United States district court for the district where the petitioner has his residence for hearing de novo of the nationality claim and determination as if such proceedings were originally initiated in the district court under the provisions of section 2201 of title 28. Any such petitioner shall not be entitled to have such issue determined under section 1503 (a) of this title or otherwise . . . .”

       Prior to 1961, there was no specific statutory authorization for judicial review of deportation orders. For many years, habeas corpus had been the exclusive judicial remedy for challenging such orders, see Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U. S. 229, 235 (1953), but in 1955, we held that aliens could also obtain review of deportation orders in actions for declaratory and injunctive relief in district court under § 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. §702 (1976 ed.), Shaughnessy v. Pedreiro, 349 U. S. 48.

       In addition to showing the existence of a “genuine issue of material fact” as to his nationality, a petitioner must demonstrate that his citizenship claim is not “frivolous” to obtain a de novo hearing. § 106 (a)(5). The “frivolousness” standard apparently refers to the merits of the legal theory underlying the citizenship claim. A “frivolous” claim would be analogous to one that could not survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 12 (b) (6). No one has suggested that the legal theory underlying petitioner’s claim to American citizenship — that he was born in this country — is frivolous.

       In addition to holding that petitioner had not satisfied the standard of Kessler v. Strecker, the Court of Appeals held that petitioner had not made a “colorable” claim to United States citizenship. The dissenting judge stated that she was unable to say that petitioner’s claim was not “colorable.” The term “colorable” appears nowhere in the statute, and neither opinion hints at its derivation. We cannot tell whether, by use of the word “colorable,” the Court of Appeals was applying the proper standard as set forth in § 106 (a) (5); if it was applying that standard, we believe it did so erroneously. See Part III, infra.

       None of the other Courts of Appeals to apply the standard have held that “substantial evidence” is necessary to trigger de novo review under §106 (a)(5)(B). Instead, they have all indicated, although with some variation in language, that the appropriate standard is whether there is a genuine issue of material fact as to petitioner’s alienage. See Olvera v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 504 F. 2d 1372, 1375 (CA5 1974); Rassano v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 377 F. 2d 971, 972 (CA7 1966); Maroon v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 364 F. 2d 982, 989 (CA8 1966); Pignatello v. Attorney General of the United States, 350 F. 2d 719, 723 (CA2 1965).

         Section 106 was designed to minimize dilatory and repetitious litigation of deportation orders in several key respects. First, § 106 (c) precludes consideration of petitions for review or for habeas corpus where the validity of the deportation order “has been previously determined in any civil or criminal proceeding, unless the petition presents grounds which the court finds could not have been presented in such prior proceeding, or the court finds that the remedy provided by such prior proceeding was inadequate or ineffective to test the validity of the order.” 8 U. S. C. § 1105a (c) (1976 ed.). Second, § 106 (a)(1) mandates that all petitions for review must be filed within six months of the date of the final deportation order. 8 U. S. C. § 1105a (a)(1) (1976 ed.). Finally, the statutory review proceeding replaces review in the district court under § 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. §702 (1976 ed.), with review directly in the courts of appeals. 8 U. S. C. § 1105a (a) (1976 ed.). See supra, at 752-753.

       Petitioner and the Pianettis testified that the name Vincenzo Di Paola was probably chosen because July 17 was the feast day for Saint Vincent.

       Salvatore Agostb was sometimes referred to in the deportation proceedings as Arcángelo Agosto. Petitioner claimed they were different names for the samé man who used one ¡name with his wife, Carmela'Todaro, and one ■name with Angela Porello.

       Petitioner maintained, in connection with-' a suit to decl&ré his third wife his lawful wife, that he had been only 17 at the time of an earlier ni'ártiage in 1944, though in the-deportation proceedings he claimed to have beOn bom no later than 192§. In an effort to obtain leniency at his 'sentencing for falsification of papers in connection with a Federal Housing Administration loan, petitioner permitted his attorney to represent to the. court that petitioner had no- prior convictions; even though he did at that time have a criminal record in Italy.-

       For example, Carmen Ripolino testified that he did not know who his father was, and that he had two birth certificates, one showing his father as Giacomo Ripolino (the man who brought Angela Porello to this country) and a second showing his father to be one Charles Litizia. In addition, the Pianettis testified to the varied relationships Mrs. Pianetti’s sister, Angela Porello, maintained with different men and to her departure from Italy with one of those men, leaving behind a husband and two daughters. Although the Service may not have challenged this other testimony because it was immaterial to the issue of petitioner’s citizenship, its lack of materiality and its unflattering character also suggest that the witnesses would have had no reason to testify to those events if they had not occurred.

       Since only the registrar signed the entry in the registry of births regarding the birth of Vincenzo Di Paola and the witnesses who were present were unable to write and only had the document read to them, it is certainly not entirely implausible that Angela’s father was able to have that record and the notation at the foundling home falsified.

       [B]y eliminating review in the district courts, the bill [was intended to] obviate one of the primary causes of delay in the final determination of all questions which may arise in a deportation proceeding.” 104 Cong. Rec. 17173 (1958) (remarks of Rep. Walter), quoted in Foti v. INS, 375 U. S., at 225 n. 11.

       On June 3, 1968, in connection with a friendly suit to have Mary Marie Agosto declared his legal wife, petitioner executed an affidavit which contradicted the story told at the first deportation hearing. The affidavit stated that petitioner was bom in 1927, and therefore was only 17 when he married his Italian wife in 1944. This would have rendered his first marriage invalid and would have validated his American marriage.

       The origin of the term in this context seems to have been Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U. S. 276 (1922), where the Court articulated the constitutional requirement of a judicial hearing when the petitioner “claims citizenship and makes a showing that his claim is not frivolous . . . .” Id., at 284. The threshold requirement that the claim not be frivolous was absent from one of the earlier drafts of § 106 (a) (5). See H. R. Rep. No. 2478, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1958).

       Petitioner himself does not argue that a “frivolous” claim to citizenship can only be one whose underlying legal theory is frivolous. Petitioner’s counsel conceded before us that if there were uncontested documentary evidence of birth in Italy and only the alien’s sworn statement that he was born in the United States, “that would be a frivolous claim because [the hypothetical case] is really a bare assertion of citizenship without any evidentiary support at all.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 10.

       The courts of appeals are accustomed to determining whether in forma pauperis appeals from denials of habeas corpus petitions are “frivolous,” and therefore warrant dismissal, under 28 U. S. C. § 1915 (d). Whether such an appeal is considered “frivolous” may depend on either the legal theory or the facts of the case.

       In Maroon v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 364 F. 2d 982 (CA8 1966), the alleged alien — somewhat like petitioner here — changed his story between the deportation proceedings and judicial review, in the face of solid contrary documentation offered by the Service. The Court of Appeals concluded: “In this situation, petitioner’s present claim to be a national of the United States, wholly unsupported by any substantial evidence whatever, and utterly inconsistent with the documents admittedly executed by him, would appear to be frivolous.” Id., at 989 (emphasis supplied).

       In Ng Fung Ho, two of the petitioners’ claims of citizenship apparently were not contradicted by independent evidence presented by the Government. Rather, the petitioners had. entered the United States lawfully, as the foreign-bom sons of a naturalized United States citizen and therefore as citizens themselves, and had been issued “certificates of identity.” Later, when immigration officials came to suspect perjury in the earlier proceedings, they sought to deport the petitioners. The petitioners argued in this Court that the immigration authorities had not presented any “real substantial evidence to support them in attempting ... to set aside the former finding of American citizenship. . . .” Brief for Petitioners in Ng Fung Ho v. White, O. T. 1921, No. 176, p. 33. Thus the determination of citizenship in Ng Fung Ho depended entirely on whether the evidence of the petitioners was believed by the factfinder or disbelieved because of the Service’s attempt to discredit it. Perhaps this explains the Court’s use of the “sufficient, if believed” language.

       When a party moves for a directed verdict, he does so after the evidence is in. This is comparable to the situation confronting a court of appeals in a case like this. The formulation of the standard governing summary judgments and directed verdicts is the same with respect to the “genuine issue” rule: “Both motions . . . call upon the court to make basically the same determination — that there is no geninue issue of fact and that the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.” 10 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2713, p. 407 (1973). Yet a major difference between summary judgment and directed verdict is that credibility determinations may enter into the latter but not the former. Unlike a summary judgment motion, “a directed verdict motion typically would be made after the witness had testified and the court could take account of the possibility that he either could not be disbelieved or believed by the jury.” Id., at 406.

       In addition, the Court substitutes its “genuine issue” standard for that used even by some of the Courts of Appeals in cases cited by the Court with approval. For example, in Rassano v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 377 F. 2d 971 (CA7 1967), the petitioner and three supporting witnesses testified that the petitoner’s father said he had been naturalized and that both father and son were citizens. They were unable to produce the naturalization papers or to testify that they had seen them. The court held that the evidence was insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact, in part because of the untrustworthiness of the testimony. While the Bassano court used the standard of “genuine issue of material fact,” in conformity with the statutory language, it surely did not use the sumipary judgment standard endorsed by the Court today.

       And while the facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment, this means no more than that “the party opposing a summary judgment motion is to be given the benefit of all reasonable doubts and inferences in determining whether a genuine issue exists that justifies proceeding to trial.” 10 Wright & Miller, supra, at 510 (emphasis supplied).

       The Board of Immigration Appeals did say: “It is not beyond the realm of possibility that [petitioner’s] claim to United States citizenship is legitimate.” Pet. for Cert. viii. But the rest of the Board’s statements place this one in perspective. Immediately following its acknowledgment that petitioner’s claim was not demonstrably impossible, the Board observed that it would have to accept a number of illogical and unrealistic propositions in order to accept petitioner’s most recent story. In essence, the Board made clear that the story could not be accepted by reasonable minds; and it concluded ultimately that petitioner’s claim to citizenship “[had] been knowingly false since its inception.” Id., at xii.