The city of Manchester's local welfare guidelines provided that misrepresentation or omission of information by a client seeking assistance was grounds for denial or termination of all assistance for up to six months. In this case, the city alleged that the clients misrepresented their financial status and accordingly issued a denial of all assistance for six months. The clients challenged this suspension, and the trial court agreed with the clients. The Supreme Court, however, reversed the decision and sent it back to the trial court, finding that the city's guidelines were preempted by state law.
Preemption occurs when a lower level of government, such as a city, is prevented from regulating something or regulating it in a certain way because doing so would conflict with regulation by a higher level of government such as the state. Preemption may be express or implied. Implied preemption may be found when the comprehensiveness and detail of the state statutory scheme shows legislative intent to occupy the field and supercede local regulation. State law also preempts local law when there is an actual conflict between the two, or when local regulation would frustrate the state's purpose.
Under RSA 165:1-b, willful failure to comply with local guidelines may lead to suspension from assistance, even if the person is otherwise eligible. However, the law provides that the initial suspension period is seven days. If the suspension occurs within six months after the end of a prior suspension period, the new suspension period is fourteen days. The period of ineligibility or suspension may be longer if, at the end of the seven or fourteen-day period, the person continues to fail to carry out the specific actions required of him or her. In that case, suspension continues until the person complies.
Given this statute, the court found that the city's guidelines could not provide for different suspension periods because they would conflict with the law. While it was possible that a suspension could last for six months if a person failed to comply for that long after an initial suspension, "under no circumstances…did RSA 165:1-b allow the City to impose a blanket six-month suspension."