Document: 443 U.S. 282 99 S.Ct. 2767 61 L.Ed.2d 541 Joseph A. CALIFANO, Jr., Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Appellant,v.Norman J. BOLES et al. No. 78-808. Argued April 25, 1979. Decided June 27, Syllabus Held : Section 202(g)(1) the Social Security Act restricting "mother's insurance benefits" to widows divorced wives wage earners does not violate equal protection component Due Process Clause Fifth Amendment by thus denying such benefits mother an illegitimate child because she was never married earner who fathered child. Pp. 288-297. (a) Such denial bears a rational relation Government's desire ease economic dislocation that occurs when dies surviving parent is left with choice stay home care for children or go work. Congress could reasonably conclude woman far less likely than one did be dependent upon at time his death. 288-293. (b) The incidental and, large degree, speculative impact § on as class sufficient treat unwed mothers discrimination against children. focus these dilemma spouse former spouse, whereas needs, such, minor deceased are addressed through separate "child's provided Act. 293-296. 464 F.Supp. 408, reversed. Harriet S. Shapiro, Washington, D. C., appellant. Herbert Semmel, appellees. Mr. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion Court. 1 Since Depression 1930's, Government has taken increasingly itself task insulating economy individual from buffeting fortune. federal old-age, survivors, disability provisions (SSA) possibly pre-eminent examples: attempts obviate, program forced savings, dislocations may otherwise accompany old age, disability, death breadwinner. As exercise in governmental administration, social security system unprecedented dimension; fiscal year 1977 nearly 150 million claims were filed.1 2 Given this magnitude, number times SSA have reached Court warrants little surprise.2 Our cases evidence sensitivity legislative administrative problems posed design adjudication scale. generally two types. first categorization.3 In light specific wishes alleviate, it necessary define categories beneficiaries. process categorization presents difficulties inherent any line-drawing where draftsman confronts universe potential beneficiaries different histories distinct needs. He strives level generality administratively practicable full appreciation included members whose "needs" statutorily defined occurrence marked those isolated individuals outside classification. "General rules essential if fund magnitude administered modicum efficiency, even though inevitably produce seemingly arbitrary consequences some cases." Califano v. Jobst, 434 47, 53, 98 95, 99, 54 228 (1977). A case-by-case would provide "perfect fit" theory increase expenses degree benefit levels probably reduced, precluding perfect fit fact. Mathews Lucas, 427 495, 509, 96 2755, 2764, 49 651 (1976); Weinberger Salfi, 422 749, 776-777, 95 2457, 2472-2473, 45 522 (1975). 3 second type problem been brought involves Administration's procedures dispute resolution denied, decreased, terminated Administration concluded claimant entitled what he requested received past.4 Again sensitive special presented mass administration system. After classification completed, goal accuracy promptness actual allocation pursuant classifications. amenable trappings adversary lest again threatened costs administration. Eldridge, 424 319, 343-349, 893, 906-910, 47 18 Richardson Perales, 402 389, 406, 91 1420, 1430, 28 842 (1971). Fairness can best assured sound managerial techniques quality control designed achieve acceptable rate error. 4 This case challenge categorization. Appellees Norman Boles Margaret Gonzales represent nationwide all their allegedly ineligible under each her SSA, amended, 42 U.S.C. 402(g)(1), only makes available wives.5 By virtue Court's decision inWeinberger Wiesenfeld, 420 636, 1225, 43 514 (1975), widowers, leaving title misnomer. There we held provision women violated Amendment. 5 W. died 1971. widow, Nancy L. Boles, children, promptly awarded child's benefits. receives mother's Appellee lived three years before marriage bore son him, Boles.6 sought herself son. Her granted benefits, but personal request denied had earner. 6 exhausted remedies then filed suit United States District Western Texas. certified "all presently Mother's Insurance Benefits solely 402(g)(1) restricts once fathers children." App. Juris. Statement 1a-2a. found unconstitutional. steps its logic. 7 First, read supra, holding chiefly It quoted passage observed: 8 "[Section] 402(g), linked directly responsibility intended permit elect work devote themselves . 9 "That purpose behind 402(g) deprived opportunity attention other more clear history." U.S., 648-649, S.Ct., 1233. 10 On basis language purposes analysis, pertinent unequal treatment mothers, rather final step application issue here unconstitutional, relying invalidating constitutional grounds legislation discriminated illegitimates status birth. E. g., Weber Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 164, 92 1400, 31 768 (1972); Gomez Perez, 409 535, 93 872, 35 56 (1973); Jimenez Weinberger, 417 628, 94 2496, 41 363 (1974); Trimble Gordon, 430 762, 97 1459, 52 11 We noted probable jurisdiction, 439 1126, 1042, 59 87 (1979), now incorrectly analyzed case. accordingly reverse. 12 643, 1231, 202(g) "was added 1939 amendments 'afford adequate family unit.' H.R.Rep.No. 728, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., (1939)." created "were persons hardship occasioned loss earner's support." 50, 97-98; see De Castro, 429 181, 185-186, 431, 434-435, 50 389 (1976). Specifically, [and men] 648, animating concern work, often exacerbated labor force. "Mother's make easier. But be, think now, general dispensing child-care subsidies.7 Instead, limit category actually suffer confronted juncture between employment assumption full-time responsibilities. 13 there obvious logic exclusion men "Both tradition common experience support conclusion event which normally marks important change status." 99. legally required therefore source income. Thus, possibility severe remote. 14 analogous involved "wife's income benefits." concluding deny protection, 15 "Divorce nature works drastic relationship husband wife. rationally assumed husbands depend financial do couples married. wife encounter becomes disabled well differ kind retired must face. She feel pinch extra accompanying husband's age disability. irrational recognize basic fact deciding defer monthly payments until they reach 62." 188-189, 436. 16 Likewise, upheld 9-month duration-of-relationship eligibility requirement stepchildren stated "to prevent use sham marriages secure payments." Id., 767, 2468. relevant argument whether "the test [appellees not] meet [was] so related legitimate objective [could] used deprive them [did] satisfy test." 772, 2470. recognized statutory legitimate, sincere relationships. 17 "While possible debate wisdom excluding claimants order discourage relationships, rule exclude obviously arrangements, choose adopt course. Large numbers people eligible programs potentially subject inquiry validity relationships earners. Not prophylactic approach obviate necessity individualized determinations, also protects uncertainties delays into circumstances marriages." 781-782, 2475. background analyze perceived flaw dependence rationale distinction unmarried persons. pointed out 1972 lifted seeking show measure immediately death.8 seized refutation characterization attempt deceased. demanding precision warranted our cases. 19 Certainly envision precision. history surrounding devolution requirements suggests effect relatively byproduct Congress' core concern: older over 20 years—women knew housewives—and wife's state divorce laws alimony accepted property settlement lieu alimony.9 maintained uniform wife's, widow's, Obviously thereby simplified. Undoubtedly, younger incidentally many being victimized laws.10 However, seeks alleviate inequity laws, quite rightly conceive painting fence, touching up etching. repeatedly no "a filte[r] those, factual position generated congressional reflected statute." 777, 2472; 189, sum, privation appellees argue characterize fashion miss point root Quite naturally, seek statute will frame manner most favorable claim. proper analysis exact science, scouting begin itself. Only shown substantial disparate classes continue classes. 21 warrant further product discriminatory purposes. See Personnel Administrator Mass. Feeney, 442 256, 2282, 60 870 (1979). latter paid earner11 noted, Gonzales' receive result guardian's receipt incidental: vary within recipient's care, foster context, lost remarriage earns income—all despite needs spouse; benefits.12 Nor invariably true whatever derivative enjoyed guardian If cared wife, natural own adopted child.13 And live households headed 22 warranting scrutiny Amendment, purportedly consequently suffers significant deprivation imposition burden. expanded pressed appellees, beneficiaries, terms dominion freedom enhanced thereby, every ripple familial generally, propagation determined proximity sensibilities others. Possibly largest gratified nonmaterial way friend relative Some limits imposed decree, 23 hard choices countervailing pressures. wherever tempered country remain contributory plan become welfare program. General objectives public assistance legislation. limited resources fund, expansion poses prospect reduced claimants. need look facts illustration. Boles' earnings record. extending reduce 20%.14 end meaningful staying undermining express concentrate funds greatest. 24 Because disposition issue, appellant's arguments: improperly met jurisdictional 205(g) 405(g),15 sovereign immunity barred court's award retroactive monetary relief. 25 judgment 26 Reversed. 27 MARSHALL, whom BRENNAN, WHITE, BLACKMUN join, dissenting. critical question Act, discriminates parents determines spouses, distinguishes parents. Having characterized statute, concludes marital index dependency permissible 97, (1977), If, however, found, incorporates based legitimacy tested rigorous standards (1974), (1972). 29 Determining is, sure, "an science." Ante, 294. neither revision. disregarding history, structure, Program 202(g). Just four Terms ago, unanimous underlying "is other." 1233, (1975).1 Indeed, author today's concurred separately Wiesenfeld ground examination context "convincingly demonstrates [§ 202(g)] contributing workers parent." 655, 1236 (REHNQUIST, J., concurring) (emphasis added). That same persuade "animating concern" assist merely "incidental." 288-289, 294 I cannot agree. my judgment, structure establish "convincingly" aid purpose, respectfully dissent. 30 * concedes, must, enable spouses 289. Despite concession, manages sole program, purposes, it. Unencumbered direct reaches positing "actually earner." Ibid. asserted finds "obvious logic" 202(g)'s since "Congress death." nor supports determination enacted Aid extended Amendments form "widows' Advisory Council Security, formulated indicated "intended supplements orphans' enabling widow Final Report (1938). Proposals grant without rejected, apparent young childless savings grown able them. Board, H.R.Doc. 110, 7-8 (1939). H.R.Rep. 36-37 (1939); Hearings House Committee Ways Means, Subsequent re-enactments objective—to allow [their] instead working." 1971 Reports Old-Age, Survivors, Disability Medicare Programs 32 Moreover, entire belies economically imposes dependency. obtain "regardless [the earner] living supporting death, supported them." 412 (W.D.Tex.1978). contrast, fully insured nonetheless qualify undercuts attempted linkage previously ever father, father excused legal obligations proceedings. terminates claim account although likelihood, entitlement remarriage. F.Supp., 413.2 short, nothing sustains opposed 33 Equally untenable insufficient analysis. ante, effect, reasons 34 "[t]he ." none enumerated "incidental" contrary, restrictions, together others neglects mention, consistent program—to afford option caring home. plainly served limitations already choice. Factors including remarriage, income, qualification indirectly reflect resources; not. Similarly, conditions cease leaves parent's custody, 202(d)(5), 402(d)(5), reinforce For continues "only long realistic might home." 650 n. 17, 1234 17. 36 submits dimension conceivably father's suggestion, course, presupposes both extraordinary beneficence part strong attachment child, assumptions defend.3 forcing forgo hardly comports articulated encourage parental care. 37 event, prior holdings amply demonstrate, disadvantages saved simply penalized conceivable circumstances. example, (1972), rejected suffered statutes certain illegitimates.4 unconstitutional right inherit intestate wrote wills disadvantaged provision. So too here, dismiss "hypothetical reshuffling facts," 774, 1467, particularly disregards very single foster. 38 Finally, disadvantage constitutionally cognizable sense "exercise [is] thereby." 295. render beneficiary practical matter, exercises "dominion" children's afforded 202(d) 402(d), recipient. Children "speculative" declares so. 39 adhere understanding, unanimously expressed Program, statute's restrictions should evaluated operate, legitimacy. II 40 Statutes foreclose opportunities birth invidious discrimination. Levy Louisiana, 391 68, 88 1509, 436 (1968). To penalize conduct alter "illogical unjust." 175, 1406. Accordingly, classifications Amendment5 unless bear close interest. 637, 2502; 509-510, 2764-2765, arguing meets test, Therefore, establishes maximum amount payable contends appropriate means allocating finite insured's Brief Appellant 28. threshold difficulty restriction bars recovery regardless particular account. defended rationing device withholds competing among ration. Insofar allocate need, carefully tailored objective. 770-771, 1465-1466; 538, 875.6 operated contexts multiple claimants, withstand (1974). cases, sufficiently accurate conclusively illegitimates. At workmen's compensation scheme unacknowledged recover exhaust allowable Noting "may much born wedlock," 169, 1403, declined view proxy dependence. Griffin, 1069, 689, 660 summarily aff'g 346 1226 (D.C.Md.); Davis, 678, 659 342 588 (D.C.Conn.). struck down granting worker's after onset afterborn except 4, supra. infirmities identified equally evident case; like 202(g), overinclusive extent aided earner, underinclusive withheld dependent. inJimenez, serves aims concomitant 2501.7 44 cannot, expect congruence ends complex scheme. 284-285. give imprimatur distinctions needlessly predicated disfavored status, beyond individual's power affect. Although "blanket conclusive exclusion" expedient screening 2501, inaccurate, unjust, settled precedents, Office Management Administration, Year Review: 1977, p. ii (July 1978). Yamasaki, 682, 2545, 176 (1979); (1977); Webster, 313, 1192, 51 360 Goldfarb, 199, 1021, 270 Norton Mathews, 524, 2771, 672 (1975); Wright, 405 208, 788, 151 Belcher, 404 78, 254, 231 (1971); Flemming Nestor, 603, 80 1367, 1435 (1960). Many disposed summary action. numerous involving arising federal-state cooperative authorized SSA. See, e. Graham Richardson, 403 365, 1848, 534 (1971) (Assistance Persons Permanently Totally Disabled); California Human Resources Dept. Java, 121, 1347, 666 (unemployment insurance); Dandridge Williams, 397 471, 90 1153, 491 (1970) (Aid Families With Dependent Children). bulk fall heading. supra (termination marriage); (gender-based differences computation); defining earner); (denial 62 age); (illegitimate presumption legitimates); (same ); (duration-of-relationship benefits); survivor's widowers); disability); (reduction aliens deportation). (lack prerecoupment oral hearing overpayment cases); (question evidentiary termination (challenge employed suspension (written reports physicians examined "substantial evidence" benefits). 202(g)(1), set forth provides: "(g)(1) (as section 416(d) title) currently individual, mother— "(A) married, "(B) widow's benefit, "(C) old-age three-fourths primary "(D) wages self-employment month preceding died, "(E) filing "(F) "(i) referred subparagraph (E) son, daughter, "(ii) "shall (subject subsection (s) section) month, beginning August 1950 ending following occurs: exceeding remarries, dies. Entitlement shall end, mother, individual." 216(d)(3), 416(d)(3), states: "(3) term 'surviving mother' (A) (B) daughter while him 18, (C) (D) 18." acknowledged paternity Boles. 52, 98: "The earnings; benefiting needy persons." 434-435. Originally, similar Then made remarried, receiving least one-half him. Aug. 28, 1950, 101(a), 64 Stat. 485. 1965, bar relaxed. woman's rights restored ended divorce. showing contributions" suffice 308, 79 377-379. changes discussed 1972, 114(c), 86 1348. Interestingly, mentioned amendment. "Benefits, present law, lasted divorce, mother. that: (1) husband; (2) contributions written agreement; (3) court providing husband. "In courts prohibited alimony, precluded meeting third requirement. Even decided support. advice could, disqualified intent protect dissolved along years—particularly housewives earn own. committee believes law therefore, recommends eliminated. changed." S.Rep. 92-1230, 142 92-231, pp. 54-55 (1971), U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News 4989. When 1965 Changes passing mention 404, 89th 108 (1965). precise figures cost inferred small $23 annual estimated eliminating across board. 142. Department Welfare compliance $60 annually. absolute affirmed domicile with, by, difference interpretation subscribed concurrence 1236. interpretations conflict, feels better quote Jackson, concurring McGrath Kristensen, 340 162, 177-178, 71 224, 233, L.Ed. 173 (1950): "Precedent, lacking ways judge recede proven perhaps misled Chief Taney, License Cases, How. 504, recanting views Attorney Maryland Brown Maryland, Wheat. 419, 678. Baron Bramwell extricated himself somewhat embarrassment saying, 'The matter appear me appears appeared then.' Andrews Styrap, L.T.R.(N.S.) 704, 706. Story, accounting contradiction opinion, properly put matter: 'My error, furnish .' Gooding, 460, 478, 693. gracefully good-naturedly surrendering considered position, invoke all." Compare 402(g)(1)(E) 402(g)(1)(F)(i). 22. widowers impermissible gender-based ruling, reasoned sex other. 651, 1234. dismisses awkward metaphor. view, inclusion represents "alleviate laws." 293. And, undertakes endeavor, "it etching." technique elides Metaphor mask significance confer spouses. negates proposition painter-draftsman concerned assisting statistics area difficult obtain, data reveal high percentage reside mothers. Approximately births 20, Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Natality Statistics, (Feb. 1979), studies indicate 86% 93% Alan Guttmacher Institute, Research Development Division Planned Parenthood Federation America, Million Teenagers (1976) (hereinafter cited Report); F. Furstenberg, Unplanned 174 Furstenberg); Zelnik Kanter, Resolution Teenage First Pregnancies, Family Planning Perspectives 77 (1974) (Table 5). Comparable reported 20. Wisconsin Health Services, Unmarried Mothers Wisconsin, 1974 (1975) (Tables 11, 13). remaining residing either adoptive individuals. 11; Furstenberg 174. One in-depth study separations attributable illness inability during hours employment. Under Weber, legitimates fathers. 167-168, 1402-1403, where: permitted earner; illegitimacy resulted formal nonobvious defects parents' ceremony; subsequently legitimated; (4) wage-earning contributed 631, 2, 2499, 2. Vance Bradley, 440 93, 94-95, 1, 939, 942, 171 Bolling Sharpe, 347 497, 499, 74 693, 694, 884 (1954). established survivors affords preferring 175-176, 1406-1407, Unlike (1976), presumed proof illegitimates,

Category: 1