6 Justices + 1 judge temporarily assigned
How later courts described this case
- 6 Justices + 1 judge temporarily assigned
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Sullivan, J.
(dissenting in part). I would affirm the entire judgment. N. J. 8. A. 18A:33-4 establishes a school lunch program not just for needy children but for “all children enrolled in the district.” 1 Needy children get the addi *396 tional benefit of being provided with the same lunches either free of cost or at reduced prices. The benefits of this kind of program to all children cannot be disputed.
On this score, the provision of N. J. 8. A. 18A:33-5, which exempts a school entirely from the act if less than 5% of its pupils are needy, does not make sense. Mot only needy children, but also all other children in such a school, suffer a deprivation of this worthwhile program. I agree with the trial judge that the exemption provision is plainly arbitrary, is invalid and is severable from the rest of the statute. I would affirm.
Justice Pashman joins in this dissent.
The statute was passed to take advantage of federal assistance provided under the National School Lunch Act, 42 U. S. C. A. § *396 1751, et seq., and supplements thereto. This act declares it to be the policy of Congress “to safeguard the health and well being of the Nation’s children * * * by assisting the State, through grants-in-aid and other means, in providing * * * for the establishment, maintenance, operation and expansion of nonprofit school-lunch programs.”