Document: 429 U.S. 181 97 S.Ct. 431 50 L.Ed.2d 389 F. David MATHEWS, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Appellant,v.Helen de CASTRO. No. 75-1197. Argued Nov. 8, 1976. Decided Dec. 13, Syllabus The statutory classification § 202(b)(1) the Social Security Act whereby a married woman under 62 whose husband retires or becomes disabled is granted monthly benefits if she has minor other dependent child in her care, but divorced ex-husband does not receive such benefits, held to violate Due Process Clause Fifth Amendment. Such classification, by enabling already burdened with children meet additional need created when reaches old age disabled, comports Act's primary objective providing workers their families basic protection against hardships loss earnings due illness age; it was irrational for Congress, deciding defer payments wives retired wage earners until they reach 62, recognize fact that couples typically live separate lives. Pp. 185-189. 403 F.Supp. 23, reversed. Rex E. Lee, Washington, D. C., appellant. Marvin A. Brusman, Chicago, Ill., appellee. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered opinion Court. 1 (1, 2) Under care. A former benefits. issue present case whether this difference treatment women permissible Amendment United States Constitution.1 2 * Section Act, 49 Stat. 623, as added amended, 42 U.S.C. 402(b)(1) (1970 ed. Supp. V), provides payment "wife's insurance benefits."2 To qualify section must be wife "divorced wife"3 an individual entitled old-age disability Then, assuming meets requirements, eligible "has attained (in ) care (individually jointly (her husband)) at time filing application child's benefit . ." 402(b)(1)(B) (emphasis supplied). As italicized phrase indicates, who child4 currently earner order receives over no even young care.5 3 appellee, Helen Castro, from 1968, after more than 20 years marriage. She cares Act. In May 1971 applied later Mrs. Castro wife's shortly thereafter. At 56 old. Her denied Welfare because are payable age. 4 then filed suit District Court Northern Illinois, seeking judicial review Secretary's decision. complaint alleged 202(b)(1)(B) "operates arbitrarily discriminate wives," prayed directing pay her, declaration unconstitutional, injunction section's application. 5 three-judge court convened pursuant 28 §§ 2281, 2282. considered parties' cross-motions summary judgment relief complaint, holding provision "invidiously discriminates violation Amendment." v. Weinberger, 30. Central court's ruling its determination "there rational basis concluding having greater economic caring child." Id., 28. appealed directly 1252, we noted probable jurisdiction. 425 957, 96 1737, 48 202. II 6 (3, 4) principle govern assessment any constitutional challenge law governmental monetary well established. Governmental decisions spend money improve general public welfare one way another "not confided courts. discretion belongs unless choice clearly wrong, display arbitrary power, exercise judgment." Helvering Davis, 301 619, 640, 57 904, 908, 81 L.Ed. 1307. enacting legislation kind government deny equal "merely classifications made laws imperfect. If some 'reasonable basis,' offend Constitution simply 'is mathematical nicety practice results inequality.' " Dandridge Williams, 397 471, 485, 90 1153, 1161, 25 491. 7 sure, standard which judged "is toothless one," Mathews Lucas, 427 495, 510, 2755, 651. But challenged statute strong presumption constitutionality. "So long judgments rational, invidious, legislature's efforts tackle problems poor needy subject straitjacket." Jefferson Hackney, 406 535, 546, 92 1724, 1731, 32 285. It mind consider specific presented litigation. 8 (5, 6) aspects system do purport assistance those most. That predominant purpose these provisions were enacted amended. Rather, provide age.6 9 here consistent overriding legislative aim: enables disabled. Accordingly, Court's observation many inadequate child-support payments, while undoubtedly true, hardly point. same can said statement For whatever relevance observations might have involving attack on gave based overall need, case. 10 addresses particular consequences his family earner's disability. Congress could rationally decided resultant income, extra expense often attends age, consequent disruption family's well-being may occur stops working justify together still child. 11 Indeed, took note exactly factors amended 1958. Between 1950 1958 retirement received only husbands became payments. Amendments 1950, 101(a), 64 482. disabled.7 1958, 205(b)(1), 72 1021. Both House Senate Committee reports accompanying proposed explained give "recognition confronting bread winners" stop work. focus specifically "adequate (the husband's) family," mentioned high medical expenses associated possibility forgo work husband. H.R.Rep. 2288, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., 12-13 (1958); S.Rep. 2388, 10-11 (1958), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News p. 4218. 12 view purpose, surprising congressional evidently different respect women. Divorce nature works drastic change personal relationship between wife. Ordinarily means will go ways. assumed depend less each financial support stay married. encounter differ degree face. instance, home feel pinch husband's short, 62. 13 This say never affect Many alimony divorce able group include appellee constitutionally obligated use subsidize decide remained pressing faced continue husbands. 14 event, question precisely filters out those, factual position generated concern reflected statute." Weinberger Salfi, 422 749, 777, 95 2457, 2472, 45 522. We conclude, accordingly, involved infringe upon 15 16 so ordered. 17 MARSHALL concurs judgment. settled Amendment's encompasses principles. See, e. g., 768-770, 2468-2469, Title Supp.) full: "(b) Wife's "(1) (as defined 416(b) title) every 416(d) "(A) "(B) wife) individual) wages self-employment income individual, "(C) wife, married, "(D) amount one-half "shall (subject subsection (s) section) month, beginning first month ending preceding following occurs "(E) dies, "(F) "(G) either (i) (ii) been period immediately before date effective, "(H) marries person "(I) benefit, "(J) exceeds "(K) benefits." defines wife" "a had effective." 416(d)(1). term "divorce" refers vinculo matrimonii. 416(d)(4). conditions "child's benefits" set 202(d) 402(d) V). Generally, 18 (or full-time student 22 old) also "widow's "mother's 402(e), (g) Divorced women, without children, sections certain circumstances pertinent here. programs distinct aged contained 301-306, 1351-1355, partially repealed Pub.L. 92-603, 303(a), (b), 86 1484; 1381-1383c ed., contributory designed prevent dependency protecting common hazards. 1935 contemplated would "payable wholly regardless recipient." 615, 74th 1st (1935). public-assistance-for-the-aged program, hand, "to people .," id., 4, referred "aged individuals." 1, 620. See supra, 3-6; 628, 4-7 (1935); Message President Recommending Legislation Economic Security, H.R.Doc. 81, 20-28 grants-in-aid furnished individuals eighteen older permanently totally disabled." 351, 555. 1956 program 1956, 103(a), 70 815. Again, unlike provisions, based, instead protect involuntary, premature retirement. 1300, 81st 27-28, 53-54 (1949); Recommendations Legislation, Reports Advisory Council S.Doc. 208, 80th 69-70, 95-97 2133, 84th 3-4 (1956); 1189, 3-6 (1955), 3877. "Wife's part 1939. year provided 65 1939, 201, 53 1362. dropped requirement extended similar While history amendments sparse, presumably working. Certainly sole allow remain take child, suggests, presence ordinarily ensure parental supervision. Similarly, husbands, purposes beyond mere encouragement children.

Category: 1