U.S. Code » Title 42 » Chapter CHAPTER 7— SOCIAL SECURITY › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER IV— GRANTS TO STATES FOR AID AND SERVICES TO NEEDY FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN AND FOR CHILD-WELFARE SERVICES › Part Part A— Block Grants to States for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

42 U.S.C. § 605

Administrative provisions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Quarterly

The Secretary shall pay each grant payable to a State under section 603 of this title in quarterly installments, subject to this section.

(b) Notification

Not later than 3 months before the payment of any such quarterly installment to a State, the Secretary shall notify the State of the amount of any reduction determined under section 612(a)(1)(B) of this title with respect to the State.

(c) Computation and certification of payments to States(1) Computation

The Secretary shall estimate the amount to be paid to each eligible State for each quarter under this part, such estimate to be based on a report filed by the State containing an estimate by the State of the total sum to be expended by the State in the quarter under the State program funded under this part and such other information as the Secretary may find necessary.

(2) Certification

The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall certify to the Secretary of the Treasury the amount estimated under paragraph (1) with respect to a State, reduced or increased to the extent of any overpayment or underpayment which the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines was made under this part to the State for any prior quarter and with respect to which adjustment has not been made under this paragraph.

(d) Payment method

Upon receipt of a certification under subsection (c)(2) with respect to a State, the Secretary of the Treasury shall, through the Fiscal Service of the Department of the Treasury and before audit or settlement by the Government Accountability Office, pay to the State, at the time or times fixed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the amount so certified.

(Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title IV, § 405, as added Pub. L. 104–193, title I, § 103(a)(1), Aug. 22, 1996, 110 Stat. 2128; amended Pub. L. 105–33, title V, § 5514(c), Aug. 5, 1997, 111 Stat. 620; Pub. L. 108–271, § 8(b), July 7, 2004, 118 Stat. 814.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 605, acts Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title IV, § 405, 49 Stat. 629; July 25, 1962, Pub. L. 87–543, title I, § 107(a), 76 Stat. 188, related to use of payments for benefit of children, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 104–193, § 103(a)(1), as amended by Pub. L. 105–33, title V, § 5514(c), Aug. 5, 1997, 111 Stat. 620.

Amendments

2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–271 substituted “Government Accountability Office” for “General Accounting Office”.

1997—Pub. L. 105–33 made technical amendment to directory language of Pub. L. 104–193, § 103(a)(1), which enacted this section.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1997 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 105–33 effective as if included in the provision of Pub. L. 104–193 amended at the time the provision became law, see section 5518(d) of Pub. L. 105–33, set out as a note under section 862a of Title 21, Food and Drugs.

Effective Date

Section effective July 1, 1997, with transition rules relating to State options to accelerate such date, rules relating to claims, actions, and proceedings commenced before such date, rules relating to closing out of accounts for terminated or substantially modified programs and continuance in office of Assistant Secretary for Family Support, and provisions relating to termination of entitlement under AFDC program, see section 116 of Pub. L. 104–193, as amended, set out as a note under section 601 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 42 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1970–2023 · leading case: Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471 (1970).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471 (1970). · cites it 4× “, 42 U. S. C. § 605 . For the reasons given above, however, we do not find it necessary to consider this argument.”
Bowen v. Gilliard, 483 U.S. 587 (1987). · cites it 2× “§ 405, 42 U. S. C. § 605 . Therefore, the District Court held that the State was "taking" that child's right to exclusive use of the support money.”
Wyman v. James, 400 U.S. 309 (1971). · cites it 2× “" Section 405, 42 U. S. C. § 605 , provides that "Whenever the State agency has reason to believe that any payments of aid .”
Garcia v. Swoap, 63 Cal. App. 3d 903 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 4× “264 , cites four remedies short of reducing assistance payments in such situations: "[1] [T]he state may provide guidance and counseling services regarding the proper use and management of AFDC funds, 42 U.S.C. § 605 ; [2] it may provide for protective payments, 42 U.”
Cooper v. Laupheimer, 316 F. Supp. 264 (E.D. Pa. 1970). · cites it 2× “The Social Security Act specifies remedies for such a situation: the state may provide guidance and counseling services regarding the proper use and management of AFDC funds, 42 U.S.C. § 605 ; it may provide for protective payments, 42 U.”
James L. Hodge v. The Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., a Foreign Corp., 555 F.2d 254 (9th Cir. 1977). “, to an addressee’s agent, to an employee authorized to forward the communication, or in response to a subpoena, 42 U.S.C. § 605 (1964). Clause 2 provided that “no person” could intercept and divulge communications unless authorized by the sender or recipient.”
Anderson v. Edwards, 514 U.S. 143 (1995). “14 , it would also be inconsistent with the duty imposed on caretakers by federal law to spend AFDC payments “in the best interests of the children]” for whom they care, 42 U. S. C. § 605 , a duty specifically implemented by California law, see, e.”
United States v. Stephen L. Shriver, Joseph R. Denman, Harry Lawrence Daly, & Joseph D. Fones, 989 F.2d 898 (7th Cir. 1993). “The district court reasoned that, as a matter of law, the conduct with which defendants were charged — the manufacture and sale of modified descramblers — is not covered by the wiretap laws, and that such conduct is governed exclusively by Section 705 of the Communications Act…”
MR. X v. McCorkle, 333 F. Supp. 1109 (D.N.J. 1970). · cites it 2× “42 U.S.C. § 605 (b); 42 U.S.C. § 605 . 7 .”
Columbia Cable TV Co., Inc. v. McCary, 954 F. Supp. 124 (D.S.C. 1996). · cites it 2× “1996), this court finds that 42 U.S.C. § 605 is not applicable to this action.”
MacInnes v. Comm'r of Pub. Welfare, 593 N.E.2d 222 (Mass. 1992). · cites it 2× “” He then determined that the grantee relative has an obligation under 42 U.S.C. § 605 (1988), to use the entire AFDC grant of the assistance unit, and not just the increment attributable to the nonsibling child, for that child’s benefit.”
Joe Hand Promotions v. Burg's Lounge, 2 F. Supp. 2d 710 (E.D. Pa. 1998). · cites it 11× “” 42 U.S.C. § 605 (e)(3)(B)(iii). We have found that defendants are responsible for two violations of subsection (a), one for intercepting the satellite signal and one for exhibiting the Event.”
Show all 42 citing cases →
— 42 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii) — 1 case
G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Port City Sports Bar & Grill, LLC (E.D. Cal. 2023).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.