42 U.S.C. § 708

LIMITATION ON OBLIGATION OF FUNDS.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

“(a)In General.—In each calendar year of the covered period, the Alliance may not obligate an amount greater than the sum of—“(1) 75 percent of the amount of assessments estimated to be collected under section 707 in that calendar year;“(2) 75 percent of the amount of assessments actually collected under section 707 in the most recent calendar year for which an audit report has been submitted under section 706(f)(2)(B) as of the beginning of the calendar year for which the amount that may be obligated is being determined, less the estimate made pursuant to paragraph (1) for that most recent calendar year; and“(3) amounts permitted in preceding calendar years to be obligated pursuant to this subsection that have not been obligated.“(b)Excess Amounts Deposited in Escrow Account.—Assessments collected under section 707 in excess of the amount permitted to be obligated under subsection (a) in a calendar year shall be deposited in an escrow account for the duration of the covered period.“(c)Treatment of Amounts in Escrow Account.—“(1)In general.—During the covered period, the Alliance may not obligate, expend, or borrow against amounts required under subsection (b) to be deposited in the escrow account.“(2)Interest.—Any interest earned on amounts described in paragraph (1) shall be—“(A) deposited in the escrow account; and“(B) unavailable for obligation for the duration of the covered period.“(d)Release of Amounts in Escrow Account.—Beginning on October 1, 2028, the Alliance may withdraw and obligate any amount in the escrow account.“(e)Covered Period Defined.—In this section, the term ‘covered period’ means the period that begins on February 6, 2019, and ends on September 30, 2028.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1972–2025 · leading case: Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020). · cites it 2× “§603 (a)(5)(I)(iii) (Block Grants to States for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families)  42 U. S. C. §708 (a)(2) (Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant; Nondiscrimina- tion Provisions)  42 U.”

Wisdom v. Norton, 507 F.2d 750 (2d Cir. 1974). “The significance of Title V for our purposes is as evidence — rather •strong evidence when combined with the language and purpose of the AFDO provisions —of a congressional intent not to include unborn children under AFDC but to provide for maternity care in a different section…”

Civic Awareness of Am. Ltd. v. Richardson, 343 F. Supp. 1358 (E.D. Wis. 1972). · cites it 2× “*1360 Section 508(a) of the Social Security-Act (Title 42 U.S.C. § 708 ) provides in part as follows: “(a) In order to help reduce the incidence of mental retardation and other handicapping conditions caused by complications associated with childbearing and to help reduce infant…”

Civic Awareness of Am. Ltd. v. Richardson, 387 F. Supp. 1086 (E.D. Wis. 1975). “Richardson to defendants Planned Parenthood Association of Milwaukee and Planned Parenthood-World Population (hereinafter “Planned Parenthood”) under § 508(a)(3) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 708 (a)(3), and future grants under the Family Planning Services and…”

Lee v. UTMB Health of Clear Lake (S.D. Tex. 2021). “§ 701 ; 42 U.S.C. §§ 708 , 1395, 2000b-2; 45 C.F.”

Leffler v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (S.D. Ohio 2025). “at 1–3 (also citing 42 U.S.C. § 708 )). Possibly, Plaintiff alleges that the ALJ considered impermissible factors in making his final decision.”

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.