Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-16-03122/USCOURTS-ca7-16-03122-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Argued February 15, 2017

Decided February 17, 2017

   

Before

     WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

     FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

     DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 16‐3122

BRUNO MANCARI,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,

Defendant‐Appellee.

   

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of

Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 15 C 1105

Sidney I. Schenkier,   

Magistrate Judge.

    

O R D E R

Bruno Mancari is a citizen of Italy who resided in the United States from 1958 to 2007.

He worked for many years in the United States, and he and his employers paid Federal

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with   

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 16-3122 Document: 28 Filed: 02/17/2017 Pages: 2
No. 16‐3122    Page 2

Insurance Contributions Act taxes toward old‐age insurance and other Social Security

benefits. But Mr. Mancari was removed from the United States to Italy in 2007 after

completing a prison term following his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm

by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). In 2012, he applied to the United States

Social Security Administration for old‐age insurance benefits. The Administration

approved his application but immediately suspended payment pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 402(n)(1), which cross‐references 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2), because Mr. Mancari had been

deported due to his conviction. Under § 402(n)(1), Mr. Mancari may not receive old‐age

insurance benefits unless and until he is lawfully re‐admitted to the United States for

permanent residence.

Mr. Mancari has challenged the constitutionality of that statutory provision in further

administrative proceedings, before the district court, and now on appeal. He argues that

§ 402(n) violates the Equal Protection Clause (as incorporated in the Fifth Amendment’s

Due Process Clause, see Estate of Kunze v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 233 F.3d 948,

954 (7th Cir. 2000)), and his rights under the Due Process and Takings Clauses of the Fifth

Amendment.

Supreme Court precedent forecloses each of those claims. In Flemming v. Nestor, 363

U.S. 603, 612 (1960), the Court upheld an earlier version of § 402(n) against several

constitutional challenges, including an equal protection challenge, by a deported alien.

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 340–41 (1976), established that Social Security claimants

are not entitled to the pre‐deprivation hearing Mr. Mancari seeks unless the benefits are

awarded “based upon financial need,” which is not the case here. And a person’s

expectation that he will receive Social Security benefits is not protected by the Takings

Clause; those benefits “may be altered or even eliminated at any time.” U.S. Railroad

Retirement Board v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 174 (1980); Flemming, 363 U.S. at 609–10. To the

extent Mr. Mancari wishes to ask the Supreme Court to revisit any of these decisions, he

has raised those issues in this court. The judgment of the district court dismissing the case

is

AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-3122 Document: 28 Filed: 02/17/2017 Pages: 2